Skip to main content

Full text of "Scotland"

See other formats







This volume is the first of this new series of histories which gives 
in an essentially modern and readable form the story of the 
growth and development of different peoples 

The next volume will be 

















64 & 66 Fifth Avenue. NEW YORK 




ST. MARTIN'S House, 70 bond Street, TORONTO 



309 Bow Bazaar Street, CALCUTTA 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2014 

From the painting by Cornelius Jansen at the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh. 











In this short history of Scotland I have attempted to 
avoid the production of a mere chronological summary 
of events which, of late years, have been narrated in 
works on a larger scale. The series to which my volume 
belongs is concerned with the " Making of the Nations," 
and I have given a large proportion of my available space 
to the periods in which I think it possible to trace a real 
advance in the national dievelopment. The reigns of 
Malcolm Canmore and his immediate successors, in which 
the Celtic Kingdom of Scotland was profoundly affected 
by Anglo-Norman influences ; the War of Independence, 
which revealed the consciousness of a national unity 
that had already been attained ; and the long religious 
conflict which began with the Reformation and ended 
with the creation of Modern Scotland, have supplied 
me with my principal themes, and are narrated in some 
detail. For the rest, I have tried to give an intelligible 
outline of the sequence of events, but baronial struggles 
and the incessant border warfare find only incidental 
mention in my story. The quarrels of the Livingstones 
and the Crichtons in the minority of James II., or of 
Angus and Albany in the minority of James V., are 
merely interludes, and the Battle of Flodden itself is but 
a footnote to history, for, grave as were the effects of 
the disaster, they made no permanent modification in 
the relations between England and Scotland. Con- 



siderations of space hare led me to omit many more im- 
portant topics which cannot be briefly discussed. The 
events of the last hundred and fifty j-ears, and the con- 
troversies relating to the earliest centuries of Scottish 
history, ahke defy anything like compression, and, as 
it is impossible to say much, I have said almost nothing. 
For similar reasons I have been content with a few 
references to constitutional and administrative develop- 
ment, but to the history of Scottish institutions I hope 
to return in a larger work. 

In all small volumes dealing with large subjects the 
selection of topics is the most difficult problem, and my 
personal choice is doubtless different from that which 
another writer would have made ; such as it is, it repre- 
sents the making of the nation as it appears to myself, 
and, I venture to hope, to some of my readers. 

Throughout the book I have set before me the aim 
of giving something of the impression which men and 
events made upon contemporaries or upon the earliest 
generation that wrote about them, and for this purpose 
I have often stated things in the words of chroniclers, 
diarists, and other original or early authorities. Where 
there is no special significance in the statement I have 
not burdened my pages with names and references. 
Where the identification of my authority seemed to 
me to be of any importance, I have given his name, 
date, and nationality. I have made special use of 
the numerous original authorities for the seventeenth 
century, and have relied much on the work of Robert 
Baillie, Principal of the University of Glasgow, and a 
Member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. 
The development of Bailhe's opinions, as sho\\Ti in his 
letters and diaries, seems to me indicative of the course 
taken by the national feeling between the Covenant of 
1638 and the Restoration of 1660. Bailhe began as a 



moderate, and was originally prepared to consider 
favourably a new Prayer-Book ; he was gradually driven 
into the extreme position adopted in the Solemn League, 
and at the close of his life he again represented the 
moderate Presbyterians. But I have not confined myself 
to evidence drawn from one source, and the reader will 
find other currents of opinion represented by quotation 
and allusion. 

Ten years ago, in a work on The Relations between 
England and Scotland, I argued that the difference 
between the Highlanders and the Lowlanders of Scotland 
has been generally misunderstood and exaggerated, and 
that, apart from the large proportion of EngHsh blood 
in the Lothians and the Scandinavian influences which 
affected the north and west coasts, medieval Scotland 
was racially homogeneous and conscious of its unity. 
The generally received view was expressed in its most 
extreme form by Mr. John Richard Green, who went so 
far as to say that the farmers of Fife were, in the end of 
the thirteenth century, " stout-hearted Northumbrian 
Enghshmen," and that " the coast districts north of the 
Tay were inhabited by a population of the same blood." 
A prolonged study of the subject has confirmed me in my 
own opinion, and I have incorporated in the present work 
some new evidence which seems to me to show that the 
farmers of Fife, or of the coast districts north of Tay, 
at the close of the Middle Ages, differed from the High- 
landers only in speech and in civilization, not in race. 

It is scarcely necessary to say that I am greatly in- 
debted to recent writers, and especially to Professor Hume 
Brown and Mr. Lang, with both of whom I have had 
the privilege of discussing, at various times, some of the 
problems of Scottish history. I have also had the advan- 
tage of many conversations with Professor Dicey on the 
topic of the Union of 1707. I have found Sir Archibald 



Lawrie's notes to his volume of Early Scottish Charters 
most suggestive, and I desire also to acknowledge my 
obligations to Mr. A. 0. Anderson's Scottish Annals from 
English Chroniclers, of the translations in which I have 
occasionally availed myself. 

Several of the portraits which illustrate this volume 
have been specially photographed from the pictures in 
the possession of various private owners, who readily 
gave permission to allow the photographs to be taken. 
Besides thanking them, I have to acknowledge the courtesy 
of Messrs. James MacLehose and Sons for allowing repro- 
ductions to be made from Mr. James Curie's book " A 
Roman Frontier Post," of some examples of the important 
discoveries recently made at Newstead, near Melrose, 
and also the kindness of Lord Home and of the New 
Spalding Club for permissions in connection with the 
tomb of Sir James of Douglas and the portrait of Cardinal 


New College, 

October, 1911. 




The Beginotngs ------- 1 


Angucization : 1066—1165 - - - - - 12 

Consolidation: 1165—1290 - - - - - 45 


The War of Independence : 1290 — 1370 - - - 67 


The Kingdom of Scotland : 1370—1513 - - 103 

The Reformation : 1513—1603 - - - - 133 

The National Covenant: 1603 — 1641 - 




The Solemn League : 1641—1660 - - - - 212 


The Killing Time : 1660—1689 - - - - 245 


Modern Scotland : 1689—1843 - - - - 276 

Index -------- 313 

P. 251, 1. SI, for "Thomas" read "John." 


1. King James VI. of Scotland and I. of England Frontispiece 


2. Iron Helmet and Face-Mask (Roman) 


3. Bronze Ewer and Roman Shoes - 


4. loNA Cathedral ..... 



5. Seals of Early Scottish Kjngs 


6. Tomb of Sir James of Douglas 



7. King James I. . . . . . 



8. King James IL - - - - - 


9. King James HI. ..... 


10. King James IV. - - - - - 


11. Margaret Ttjdor . . . . . 


12. Falkland Palace - - - . . 


13. King James V. - - - - - 


14. Cardinal Beaton ..... 


15. Mary of Guise ..... 


16. Queen Mary ...... 


17. William Maitland of Lethington . 


18. The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots 


19. St. Mungo's Cathedral, Glasgow - 


20. James, First Marquis of Montrose 


21. Montrose and his Army enter Argyll - 


22. Archibald Campbell, First Marquis of Argyll 


23. James, Duke of Lauderdale 


24. James Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews 






25. John Graham of Claverhoxjse - 261 

26. The Great Hall of the Parliament House, Edinburgh 268 

27. John, Sixth Earl of Mar - - - - - 273 

28. Marshal Keith ...... 288 

29. The Porteous Riot - - - - - - 293 

30. Prince Charles Edward - 300 

31. Dr. Alexander Carlyle - . . . . 305 

32. Dr. Nathaniel Spens . . . . , 312 

Bird's-eye View of Edinburgh in 1647 - facing page 228 


Map of Scotland and Pict-Land .... 

" Wild Scots " 

Plan of the Battle of Flodden Field 
Distribution of the Clans of Scotland in the Sixteenth 
Century ....... 

John Knox 

Edinburgh Castle ...... 

Edinburgh Castle from the West Port as it appeared 

about 1640 ....... 

Plan of the Battle of Dunbar .... 

Thumbikins for Torture ..... 

The Border Counties, showing the Sites of the Chief 

Battle-Fields ...... 

Sketch-Map illustrating the Chief Events in the '45 














The first of the hundred and one controversies that trouble 
the historians of Scotland is immortalized in an early 
chapter of The Antiquary, in which Mr. Jonathan Oldbuck 
and Sir Arthur Wardour refer their dispute to the arbitra- 
ment of Mr. Lovel : 

" There was once a people called the Piks " 

" More properly Picts,^^ interrupted the baronet. 
" I say the Pikar, Pihar, Piochtar, Piaghter, or Peugh- 
tar,''^ vociferated Oldbuck : " they spoke a Gothic dia- 
lect " 

" Genuine Celtic," asseverated the knight. 

" Gothic ! Gothic ! I'll go to death upon it !" counter- 
asseverated the squire. 

The authorities whose names the angry gentlemen 
shouted in rapid succession to guide the umpire's opinion 
— " the learned Pinkerton," " the indefatigable and 
erudite Chalmers," Gordon,^ Sibbald, and Ritson — ^have 
been succeeded by the not less honoured names of Stuart 
and Skene and Stokes and Rhys, but the controversy is 
still where Mr. Lovel wisely left it. There was once a 
people called the Picts : they inhabited the North of Scot- 
land, and, if they ever possessed a language of their own, 
they abandoned it, at some unknown date, for the speech 
which, in medieval times, was called Scots, in the days of 




the Renaissance, Erse or Irish, and by eighteenth-century 
antiquaries was denominated Celtic. At the dawn of 
our national history the proper owners of this tongue, 
the Goidels or Gaels, shared with the Picts the country 
now known as Scotland. The Goidels never called them- 
selves " Celts," nor did anyone apply the name to them 
until, in 1703, M. Paul Yves Pezron TOote his work on 
the people of Brittany, entitled Antiquite de la Nation et 
de la Langue des Celtes, autrement appellez Gaulois. The 
publication of this book drew attention to the fact that 
the language of Caesar's Celts was related to the tongue 
of the people of Wales, and, less closely, to that of the 
Scottish Highlanders, and the name " Celtic," which 
ought to have been reserved for Brythonic or British Celts 
of Brittany and Wales, came to be given to the Goidels 
as well. It has long ago established itself in general usage. 

Wlien the Romans invaded this island, they foimd its 
northern portion inhabited by " Caledonians," i.e., Goidels 
and the mysterious Picts, who were perhaps of the same 
family as the Goidels, or may have been so widely different 
as not to be even Aryan in origin. The Romans did not 
trouble themselves about the divisions of the northern 
barbarians, and Latin literature has little to teach us 
about the race or races north of the Tyne or the Tweed. 
The administrators of Roman Britain foimd it necessary 
to subdue the Caledonians in order to protect the southern 
province from their incursions. In the first century, 
between the years 80 and 85, Agricola attempted to 
hold, by a series of forts, the line of Forth and Clyde, and 
he made punitive expeditions beyond the Forth. In one 
of these he fought the Battle of Mons Graupius, the un- 
known site of which ]\Ir. Oldbuck identified with the Kaim 
of Kjnprunes. The successors of Agricola maintained an 
uncertain hold upon his conquest, and about the year 
120 the Emperor Hadrian abandoned it, and built a 



wall to defend the coimtry between the Tyne and the 
Solway. Twenty years later the Romans reverted to the 
policy of Agricola, and Lollius Urbicus built the wall of 
Antoninus Pius between the Forth and the Clyde, which 
was again abandoned about the year 180. The barbarian 
incursions continued throughout the whole of the Roman 
occupation, and in 208 they roused the aged Emperor 
Severus to undertake an invasion in which he punished 
the marauders, who attacked him as, in later days, the 
Scots were wont to meet English armies, avoiding a 
pitched battle, and seizing every opportunity of rear- 
guard actions and surprises. About a century and a half 
elapsed before the Romans again attempted to avenge the 
woes of the province upon the persistent barbarians, and 
the expedition of Theodosius in 368 was their last effort 
to suppress the Caledonians. 

Traces of the Roman invaders in the country beyond 
the Forth are few, though camps generally supposed to 
be Roman are found as far north as Aberdeenshire. The 
" great station at Ardoch " in Perthshire is the most 
northern site of anything more than an occasional encamp- 
ment. Even in the district south of the wall of Antoninus 
Pius, though there are many indications of permanent 
Roman occupations, such as the recently investigated 
station at Newstead, on the Tweed, it is probable that 
Picts and Caledonians successfully resisted the advances of 
Roman civilization, and learned little from the conquerors. 
That Christianity reached the country under Roman aus- 
pices we know from the traditional story reported by the 
Venerable Bede, who tells how the Southern Picts "aban- 
doned idolatry and embraced the truth by the preaching of 
the word of Bishop Ninian, a most reverend and holy man, 
of the nation of the Britons, who had at Rome been regu- 
larly instructed in the faith and mysteries of the truth." 
The name of Whithorn, on the shores of Wigtown Bay, 



still preserves the memory of the Candida Casa, the white 
stone church which St. Ninian dedicated to the memory 
of his master, St. Martin of Tours ; but with the passing of 
the Roman Eagles, Christianity died out, or preserved a 
precarious life in North Britain. 

The Anglo-Saxon conquest of England affected the 
making of Scotland in two ways. Brythonic or British 
Celts were driven into the mountains by Teutonic in- 
vaders, and they settled in the country between Cumber- 
land and Dumbarton, except in the extreme south-west, 
where the Picts maintained themselves in the modern 
counties of Kircudbright and Wigtown. These " Picts of 
Galloway " retained a separate existence for some cen- 
turies, and the Gaelic tongue was spoken in parts of Wig- 
townshire as late as the beginning of the seventeenth cen- 
tury.* On the east coast the Angles spread northwards 
from their English settlements, and in the end of the sixth 
century their monarch held sway from the Humber to the 
Forth. The modern counties of Roxburgh, Berwick, 
Haddington, and Midlothian thus came to be part of the 
English kingdom of Northumbria ; and though the English 
conquest was not so thorough as it was south of the 
Tweed, the population of this Lothian area must, from 
the earliest times, be sharply distinguished from that of 
the rest of the country. The Lothians are the only por- 
tion of Scotland in which we know definitely of a large 
influx of English blood. 

About the time when the Brythons were being driven 
into the south-west, and before the Angles made any 
important settlement in the south-east, a new colony of 
Goidels established themselves in the west. These were 
the Scots, who, in the beginning of the fifth century, 
crossed from Ireland under their King, Fergus, and formed 
the kingdom of Dalriada, in the district now known as 
* New Statistical Account of Scotlamd, p. 219, Wigtown. 

6 5 4 3 2 I 

6 5 4 3 2 

WiA K Johnston Limited EdmburghJi London 




Argyllshire. The Scots were already Christian, and to 
the Court of Dalriada came a warrior-saint who was to 
leave a great impress upon the land. Columba, a member 
of a great Irish famil}^ and a relation of the King of Dal- 
riada, landed in 563, with twelve disciples, on the 
island of Hy, or lona. His first task was to provide for 
the contiauance of Christian teaching among the Scots, 
his second to convert the Picts. He accomplished both, 
and his haughty and, as it seems to us, vindictive temper 
was probably one of his great qualifications for the work. 
The men of Scot-land and of Pict-land had to be taught 
that the saiat was a man to be feared and obeyed, and 
the}' learned the lesson. The Kiag of Dalriada, the 
Aidan who was defeated by Ethelfrith of Xorthumbria 
in 603, owed to St. Columba the consolidation of the 
royal power in Dalriada and the recognition of the inde- 
pendent existence of his kingdom by the Irish and by the 
Picts. The Britons of Strathclyde had a missionary of 
their own in the person of St. Mungo or St. Kentigem. 
The Angles of Lothian were converted by PauHnus, and 
adopted Roman Christianity as contrasted with the Irish 
Christianity introduced by St. Columba ; but after the 
Pagan reaction led by Penda of Mercia, the work of con- 
version had to be done over again, and this time it was 
done from lona. The Angles did not long continue 
faithful to the Celtic Church, for in 664, at the Synod of 
Whitby, King Oswy entered the Roman obedience, and 
the followers of St. Columba abandoned Northimabria 
and the Lothians to the Roman clergy, who set themselves 
to convert the Picts to the Roman Church. In 710, 
Nectan, King of the Picts, imitated the example of Oswy, 
and ordered his clergy to follow the Roman usage with 
regard to Easter. The Scots of Dalriada soon accepted 
the Roman rules, which were obeyed even in lona itself, 
but the Roman Church was not really established in 



Scotland for nearly four hundred years. Strathclyde 
remained Columban, and we know from the experiences 
of Queen Margaret, in the end of the eleventh century, 
that the Scots and Picts had retained, or relapsed into, 
the customs of their first great missionary. They did not 
adopt the diocesan organization, which from the time of 
Theodore of Tarsus was the great strength of the Church 
in England, nor were the Scottish clergy in real contact 
with Rome. The work of the Keledei or Culdees, the 
hermit " Friends of God " who laboured in the country 
north of the Forth, helped to maintain the distinctive 
character of Scottish Christianity. 

The supremacy of Northumbria threatened the civil as 
well as the ecclesiastical independence of the kingdoms 
of North Britain, until, in 685, Ecgfrith of Northumbria 
was defeated at Nectansmere (Dunnichen), in Forfar- 
shire. The fall of Northumbria made way for the suprem- 
acy of the Picts in North Britain, and in the middle of 
the eighth century Angus MacFergus, King of the Picts, 
established some kind of authority over Dalriada and 
Strathclyde. His immediate successors failed to com- 
plete his work, and new invasions soon introduced a fresh 
element of division into the country. Norsemen had 
probably settled in Orkney and Shetland before the begin- 
ning of the ninth century, when Danish attacks began to 
be made upon the west coast of Scotland, and from the 
end of that century Norse settlements continued for three 
hundred years. The districts of Dumfriesshire and Gallo- 
way, all of the western islands, the west coast from the Firth 
of Clyde northwards, and the coasts from Caithness and 
Sutherland to the Moray Firth, were deeply affected by 
the influx of a Scandinavian population. The differ- 
ence between Highland and Lowland Scots, outside the 
Lothians, was, through a great part of the Middle Ages, 
a difference between Scandinavian and Goidel. 



An immediate result of Danish forays and Norse settle- 
ments was the union of the Picts and the Scots. The 
two kingdoms had long been closely connected, and both 
owed ecclesiastical obedience, first to lona, and, after the 
great Danish raid on lona in 818, to Dunkeld. In 844, 
Kenneth MacAlpin, King of the Scots of Dalriada, suc- 
ceeded to the throne of Pict-land, and the name of Scotland 
came to be used for the whole country except Strath- 
clyde. Galloway, and the Lothians. Kenneth MacAlpin 
attempted in vain the conquest of the Lothians, and his 
successors were engaged in contests with Danes and Nor- 
wegians, who made successive invasions of Caithness and 
Sutherland. Constantino III., who reigned for the first 
half of the tenth century, secured the succession of a kins- 
man to the throne of Strathclyde, but made no progress 
towards the conquest of the Lothians. He united with 
the Britons of Strathclyde, and with the Danes, against 
Ethelstan of England, and was defeated at the Battle 
of Brunanburh, famous in English song. About 962 the 
King of the Scots obtained possession of Edinburgh and 
the south coast of the Firth of Forth, and Kenneth 11. 
(971-995) greatly increased Scottish influence in the 
south-east. In 1018, Malcolm 11. , with the help of the 
Strathclyde monarch, defeated the Northumbrians at 
Car ham, and annexed the Lothians. In the same year 
Malcolm's grandson, Duncan, the gentle Duncan of Shake- 
speare's Macbeth, succeeded to the throne of Strath- 
clyde, and in 1034 he became King of the whole of the 
mainland of modern Scotland. 

Duncan's authority over a large portion of his realm 
was merely nominal. The Scandinavians, whose posses- 
sion of the Hebrides was undisputed, were the real rulers 
of large tracts in the West and in the North of Scotland, 
and the " Mormaers " of the northern provinces were 
almost independent Sovereigns in their own districts. 



The relations of successive Scottish Kings to the 
Sovereigns of England gave rise in later days to the claim 
of Normans and Plantagenets to be overlords of Scotland. 
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, no unbiassed witness, is the 
only authority for the English claim, apart from ridiculous 
forgeries prepared for the edification of English monarchs. 
The Chronicle for 924 asserts that Edward the Elder 
" was chosen for father and lord by the King of Scots, and 
the whole nation of the Scots, and Regnwald, and the 
son of Eadulf, and all those who dwell in Northumbria, 
as well English as Danes, and Northmen and others, and 
also the King of the Strathclyde Welsh, and all the Strath- 
clyde Welsh." Regnwald had died three years before, 
and the statement, though probably in a contemporary 
hand, is therefore open to suspicion. Another manuscript 
of the Chronicle tells that in 926 similar homage was 
done to Edward's successor, Athelstan, and that, on 
this occasion, the King of Scots gave up idolatry. 
Scotland had been Christian for more than three hundred 
years. Such is the evidence for the " Great Commenda- 
tion " which later lawyers interpreted as giving the 
Crown of England the rights of a feudal overlord- 
ship in Scotland. The Scots, on their part, have con- 
sistently declined to believe the " honest English " of the 

Besides this general assertion of English suzerainty 
over the whole of Scotland, the chroniclers speak of a 
special English claim to Strathclyde. They tell us that 
in 945 Edmund of England helped Malcolm I. of Scotland 
to conquer Cumbria, and granted it to him on condition 
of his becoming his " fellow- worker " by land and sea, 
and that Malcolm and the Scots promised Edmund that 
" they would all that he would." If Cumbria included 
Strathclyde, it was not Edmund's to give, nor was his gift 
of any value, for many years elapsed before the union of 



Scotland and Strathclyde. Later Scottish Kings preferred 
to consider Edmund's gift as consisting of the English 
district of Cumbria, to which this tradition gave them 
some claim. After the Norman Conquest an English 
writer invented a story, unknown to the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle, to the effect that King Edgar ceded Lothian to 
Kenneth 11. of Scotland, and that Kenneth did homage 
for it. But the Lothians were the spoil of the Battle of 
Carham, fought more than twenty years after Kenneth's 
death, and to this great and memorable victory the 
kingdom of Scotland owed the possession of that district — - 
a possession which has profoundly affected the course of 
our national history. Canute confirmed the conquest in 
1031, and the chronicler again tells of a homage which the 
King of Scots "not long held," adding, as usual an im- 
possible statement — this time about Macbeth, who had not 
yet appeared on the stage of history. The whole over- 
lordship controversy is, in fact, futile and academic. 
From very early times English Sovereigns wished to add 
Scotland to their dominions, and the ambition continued 
to be cherished almost until a Scotsman succeeded to the 
English throne. It was not a question of right, but a 
question of force, and it was to be settled, not by feudal 
interpretations of the vague assertions of chroniclers, but 
by the arbitrament of the sword. 

The settlement was still in the distant future, and we 
return to the " aged Duncan " of the play, " so clear in 
his great office," whose happy reign was crowned by vic- 
tory over the Norwegians. The Duncan of history was 
young, his title disputed, his arms unfortunate. He was 
defeated by the Northumbrians, and he suffered an over- 
whelming disaster at the hands of the Northmen, who 
had been the scourge of Scotland in the reigns of his father 
and grandfather. Six years after his accession to the 
Scottish throne he was killed in battle near Elgin (1040). 



The civil war in which Duncan met his death was raised 
by his own general, Macbeth, Mormaer of Moray, whose 
wife and stepson had a shadowy claim on the crown. 
Macbeth ruled prosperously and efficiently for seventeen 
years, and survived an English invasion under Siward, 
Earl of Northumbria, whom later English historians 
represented as acting in the interest of the family of 
Duncan. Three years afterwards, in 1057, Malcolm, the 
eldest son of Duncan, defeated Macbeth at Lumphanan, 
in Aberdeenshire, and seized the throne. Malcolm III., 
known as Canmore or Bighead, began by suppressing 
Lulach, the stepson of Macbeth, and during the last 
years of Edward the Confessor in England he made a 
ferocious raid into Northumbria, which he was often to 
waste with fire and sword. The death of Edward the 
Confessor in 1065 prepared the way for a new chapter of 
Scottish history. 



In the course of the eleventh century there were two 
conquests of England. The first, the Danish Conquest 
under Canute, was almost coincident with the last glories 
of Celtic Scotland, the Battle of Carham and the annexa- 
tion of the Lothians ; the second, the Norman Conquest 
under William, was the prelude to a triumph of English 
speech and English civilization throughout a large portion 
of the kingdom of the Scots. When Edward the Con- 
fessor died, the direct representative of Alfred the 
Great was Edgar Atheling, a boy of about ten years, 
grandson of the hero Edmund Ironside. In the course 
of the struggle which followed the Norman invasion, 
Edgar and his sisters, Margaret and Christina, sought the 
protection of Malcolm Canmore, and, probably in 1070, 
Malcolm married Margaret, the elder of the two Prin- 
cesses. It is a small part of the importance of this mar- 
riage that it made the Royal House of Scotland, after the 
death of the childless Edgar, the legitimate heirs of the 
Saxon Monarchy, for theories of the indefeasible right of 
direct succession were as yet unknown. When the daughter 
of Malcolm and Margaret married Henry I., the English 
people rejoiced in a Queen of the " true kingly kin of 
England," but their joy was simply an outburst of national 
feeling. The eleventh-century union of the Thistle and the 
Rose played no part in the far-distant union of England 




and Scotland, but it is one of the two or three most 
important factors in the making of the Scottish nation. 

Margaret was, doubtless, a saint ; she was also an 
Englishwoman. The narrative of her sanctity has been 
written by her confessor ; it is, like so many similar bio- 
graphies, enthusiastic and vague ; it has much personal 
interest and some literary value, but as a record of pro- 
fane history it has exasperated more than one historian of 
Scotland. She impressed her contemporaries as a holy 
matron, and Pope Innocent IV., a century and a half 
after her death, gave her the honours of canonization. 
To us she is more interesting as an Englishwoman, though, 
fortunately for her own peace of mind, her national and 
her ecclesiastical sympathies were never at variance. 
Her work in Scotland was a mission. She had wished to 
live a holy life as a virgin ; and Providence, in decreeing 
for her a marriage with a Celtic monarch, had given her the 
opportunity of reforming Scottish religion and Scottish 
manners. It was her fate, she believed, to lead Rome- 
ward an ignorant and almost schismatic nation, to redeem 
from barbarity a savage King. The Scots, says the 
English chronicler, were more cruel than beasts, and the 
North of England suffered scarcely less from Malcolm 
than from William I. Margaret exercised a profound 
influence over her husband, but she never succeeded in 
persuading him to deal gently with his English foes. 
Nine years after their marriage it required a miracle to 
save from him the church of Hexham, and, in his last raid 
of all, he advanced, harrying with more wantonness 
than behoved him." Foreign affairs he did not regard as 
within the sphere of womanly intervention ; whether his 
view was right or wrong, his policy was almost uniformly 
unfortunate. The pleasure of ravaging from the Tees to 
the Tyne, an occupation to which Malcolm devoted his 
energies in 1070, had to be paid for two years later, when 



William the Conqueror entered Scotland with an army, 
and received from its King a homage the meaning of 
which is uncertain, though its worthlessness cannot be 
doubted. In 1079, when William was in Normandy, 
Malcolm " did his old wont " between Tweed and Tyne, 
and provoked a reprisal from the Conqueror's eldest son, 
Robert, who took the opportunity of building a New 
Castle on the banks of the Tyne. After the death of 
William I., Malcolm invaded England, in 1091, in the 
interest of his brother-in-law the Atheling. He had less 
than his usual success as a raider, and Rufus returned 
from Normandy and marched into Lothian. A meeting 
between the two monarchs prevented any fighting, and 
the incident is not without its dramatic effect, for the 
peace-makers were none other than Robert of Normandy, 
to deal with whom William had left England, and Edgar 
the Atheling, as whose champion Malcolm had taken up 
arms. At this Lothian meeting Malcolm received from 
the Red King a confirmation of the lands which he 
claimed in England, and did such homage as he had done 
to his father. The faithless Rufus followed up the agree- 
ment by a conquest of Cumberland, and rebuilt the 
castle at Carlisle. Malcolm was justly incensed, but it 
happened that immediately afterwards the English King 
had his famous illness, when " he vowed many vows to 
God," and he summoned Malcolm to a meeting at Glouces- 
ter. " He came of his own accord," says an English 
chronicler, " praying much for peace, but only upon just 
conditions." By this time William had recovered, and 
when Malcolm came " he could not be held worthy of 
speech with our King, or of the agreements which had 
been formerly made with him, and therefore they 
parted in great enmity." Malcolm's revenge for William's 
insult was the occasion of his own death. He once more 
invaded England, and " Robert, the Earl of the North- 



umbrians, entrapped him unawares, and caused his end. 
Morel of Bamborough slew him : he was the Earl's 
steward and King Malcolm's comrade." The news of 
her husband's death at the hand of "his own gossip " 
was brought to Margaret on a November day in 1093 by 
her second son, Edgar ; her eldest son, Edward, had been 
mortally wounded as he fought by his father's side in 
the skirmish at Alnwick, and died at Edward's Isle, in 
the Forest of Jedburgh. Edgar found his mother dying ; 
she had already received the last sacraments of the 
Church, and in a few hours she was dead. 

Succeeding generations have shown a true sense of 
proportion in ascribing the importance of the reign of 
Malcolm III. to Margaret rather than to her husband. 
The career of Malcolm is simply a version of the oft-told 
tale of Anglo-Scottish warfare ; that of Margaret is the 
record of the beginnings of the real conquest of Scotland. 
The Queen set herself to bring Scotland into touch with 
the rest of Europe. She herself, though essentially 
English, had both German and Norman blood in her 
veins, and she had seen the life of the Church on the 
Continent as well as in England. The Celtic Church in 
Scotland offended her by its lack of efficient organization, 
its failure in the proper observance of Sunday, and its 
treatment of the early days of Lent. Possibly, in remote 
districts Mass was said in Gaelic ; certainly all preaching 
was in Gaelic, for when the Queen held ecclesiastical 
councils to convince the Scottish clergy of the error of 
their ways, Malcolm himself had to interpret the argu- 
ments of his consort and her English clerks. The Gaelic 
tongue was thus associated with the Celtic Church, and 
the Queen waged a merciless and gradually successful 
warfare against both. The task was not accomplished in 
Margaret's lifetime, but the irrevocable step had been 
taken, and she left children to carry on her work. The 



names of her sons suggest the influences she brought 
into Scotland. No one of the six bore the name of any 
previous King of Scotland ; four had names of Saxon Kings 
of England — -Edward, Edmund, Ethelred, Edgar. 

Church and Court were aided by a third and not less 
potent influence. Scottish commerce was beginning to 
have a history, and that history is English. The rise of 
the towns on the east coast was the result of English 
trade, and such Continental influences as we can trace 
came by way of England. How far did Queen Margaret 
and her Court, or the English traders and their commerce, 
bring English blood into Scotland ? It is not easy to say. 
Doubtless there were English exiles who fled before the 
Normans when William the Conqueror harried the North, 
and there were English captives of Malcolm's wars. 
Symeon of Durham draws a highly coloured picture of 
Malcolm's ravages, and says that " Scotland was filled 
with slaves and handmaids of English race, so that even 
to this day [circa 1120] cannot be found, I do not say a 
hamlet, but even a hut, without them." It is a kind of 
statement characteristic of the medieval compiler of 
chronicles : there is never any lack of superlatives. What 
Symeon knew about the huts and hamlets of Scotland 
we cannot tell : the sentence is a pretty embellishment 
of things which he considered " too impious to hide in 
silence." William's victims in the North were numerous, 
and the country was thinly populated. The bodies of 
the inhabitants of Yorkshire were, Mr. Freeman tells us, 
" rotting in the streets, in the highways, or on their 
own hearthstones." How many of them lived to tell in 
Scottish exile the tale of " that fearful deed, half of policy, 
half of vengeance, which has stamped the name of 
William with infamy " ? Conjectures are vain, but we 
cannot be far wrong in believing that some English immi- 
gration of exiles and captives aided the work of Mar- 



garet's twenty-five years of Anglicization. The natural 
refuge for English exiles was the Lothians, and there is no 
evidence, outside of the Lothians, of any influx of Saxons 
large enough to render English blood predominant in 
Scotland in the following century ; we have yet to trace the 
predominance of English speech and manners, for Lowland 
Scotland was not Anglicized in a quarter of a century. 

The work of Margaret and Malcolm seemed at first to 
have ended in failure, for it was followed by four years 
of a Celtic reaction. Their sons were unable to secure the 
succession, and, in accordance with a not infrequent 
Celtic practice, the crown passed to Malcolm's brother, 
Donald Bane. The narrative may best be told in the 
words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : 

" And then the Scots chose as King, Donald, Malcolm's 
brother, and drove out all the English who were with 
King Malcolm before. When Duncan, King Malcolm's 
son, who was in King William's Court — inasmuch as his 
father had formerly given him as a hostage to our King's 
father [William the Conqueror], and he had remained 
here ever since — heard that all this had so happened, he 
came to the King, and did such fealty as the King would 
have of him, and so went to Scotland with what aid he 
could get of English and French, and deprived his kins- 
man Donald of the kingdom, and was received as King." 

The Scots had repudiated English influences in the 
person of Margaret's son Edgar only to encounter them in 
the person of a son of Malcolm, born either of a previous 
marriage or out of wedlock. But the force of the Celtic 
reaction was not yet spent, for Duncan's throne was very 
insecure. In 1093 he was compelled to promise that " he 
would no more introduce into Scotland either English or 
Normans, or allow them to give him military service " ; 
in the following year " the Scots deceived and slew Duncan 
their King, and thereafter took to themselves again as 



King, a second time, his paternal uncle Donald, by whose 
direction and instigation Duncan was betrayed to death." 

Donald was in alliance with Edmund, " the only son of 
Margaret, who fell away from the good." They agreed to 
a partition of Scotland, and with the help of the Mormaer 
of Mearns defeated and slew Duncan at Mondynes, in 
Kincardineshire. Edmund took the country south of the 
Forth, and Donald ruled over the north. It seemed as 
if the northern portion of the kingdom had freed itself 
from English civilization by the sacrifice of the Lothians ; 
but Fortune was fickle, and an unexpected champion of 
Anglicization arose. The Atheling, whom William Rufus 
seems to have been sufficiently confiding to trust with 
an army, invaded Scotland in the interest of his nephew 
Edgar, and put an end to the three years' disruption of the 
kingdom (1094-1097). The usurpers were defeated and 
imprisoned, and for ten years Edgar reigned over a united 
Scotland. His uncle, the Atheling, disappears from 
Scottish history after this, his only successful exploit : he 
had yet to go on a Crusade and to fight against Henry I. 
at Tenchebrai before his chequered career came to an end. 

The most important event of Edgar's reign is the 
marriage of his sister Matilda to Henry I. in 1100. The 
Princess had been educated under the care of her mother's 
sister Christina in an English nunnery, where her father 
visited her, probably on the occasion of his ill-starred visit 
to Gloucester in 1093, and found her veiled. With a 
curse upon " Aunt Christina," who shared St. Margaret's 
admiration for the life of a nun, Malcolm had torn off 
the veil, and now King Henry succeeded in convincing 
St. Anselm that she had never been really professed. 
Edgar had owed his throne to William II., and he was 
throughout his reign on good terms with England. The 
relations beween the two Courts became more intimate 
after the marriage of Matilda, the " good Queen Mold " 



of English tradition. Edgar himself was amiable, weak, 
and fortunate. Ailred, or Ethelred,* the Abbot of Rievaulx, 
who, though he never saw Edgar, was at the Court of his 
brother David, compares him to Edward the Confessor — 
" sweet and lovable, employing no tyranny, no harshness, 
no greed against his people." Magnus Barefoot of 
Norway in 1098 ravaged the " Sudreys," the Hebrides 
south of Ardnamurchan Point, whose ancient name is 
still preserved in the title of the Bishopric of Sodor and 
Man, and threatened the mainland of Scotland. Edgar 
secured the peace of the country by abandoning any 
claim to the western islands, and the power of Norway 
was unquestioned from the Orkneys to the Isle of Man. 
It must have cost the son of St. Margaret but a slight 
pang to part with lona. Himself an Englishman in 
feeling, Edgar seems to have decided that the best solu- 
tion of the Anglo-Celtic problem was to accept the facts 
of the situation. The Lothians were English ; let them 
remain so, but why risk civil war by attempting to Angli- 
cize the North ? Hence he deserted his father's home at 
Dunfermline for the Lothian capital at Edinburgh, and 
there he held his English Court. Hence, too, m address- 
ing his subjects, he openly admitted their division into 
"Scots and English," and before his death, in 1107, he 
made an arrangement by which he hoped to prevent the 
recurrence of the troubles which had preceded his own 
accession. His brother Alexander was to succeed to the 
throne, but David was to govern the Lothians and Strath- 
clyde. It has been assumed by Scottish historians that 
David was to be entirely independent of Alexander ; but 
the fact that Edinburgh was to be held by the latter 
suggests that the ruler of the Lothians was intended to 
hold no higher position than that of a provincial governor, 
and it is significant that the English chroniclers lay no 
* Born about 1109 ; died 1166. 



stress on the division of the Scottish kingdom. The 
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle simply says that Alexander suc- 
ceeded Edgar, with King Henry's consent. Even the 
Abbot of Rievaulx, who knew David well, and " loved him 
beyond all mortals," makes only an incidental reference 
in quoting a speech made before the Battle of the Stan- 
dard, in which Robert Bruce tells David that it was in 
fear of the Norman nobles that Alexander allowed him 
to obtain without bloodshed " the part of the kingdom 
which Edgar bequeathed " to him. The words do not 
necessarily mean sovereignty, and it is b}'' no means 
certain either that it existed or was intended to exist. 
Later Scottish historians, like Wjoitoun and Fordun, do 
not refer to the division ; and though the Register of the 
Bishopric of Glasgow speaks of David as princeps et dux 
of the Cumbrian district, its language does not imply 
independence of Alexander. The division itself was not 
strictly logical, for Strathclyde was not English, and, as 
far as race was concerned, should have gone with the 
country north of the Forth ; but the Strathclyde Celts had 
not yet been troublesome, and there was good geograph- 
ical reason for the arrangement. There was, too, a further 
advantage, in that the English claims to the overlordship 
of StrathcWde and the Lothians might thus be, for 
practical purposes, recognized by David, without preju- 
dice to the title of the King of Scots. 

Alexander, whether from fear of the Normans or not, 
accepted the exclusion of a portion of the kingdom from 
his immediate government, but he did not regard Edgar's 
settlement as securing the Celtic character of the North. 
Like his mother, and Edgar himself, he was English and 
devout. He was literate, says Ailred, humble, and 
amiable to the clergy, zealous in founding churches, 
charitable to the poor, but " to the rest of his subjects 
beyond measure terrible : a man of great heart, applying 



himself in all things beyond his strength." Force of cir- 
cumstances compelled him to associate more with the old 
Celtic nobility than did either the brother who preceded 
or the brother who followed him. Wyntomi tells more 
than once how the King returned " hame agayne to Inver- 
gowiy," and it is with Invergo"v\Tie in Perthshire that his 
name is associated. But he had no scruples in using the 
influences both of the Church and of the Court to intro- 
duce English influences north of the Forth. The men of 
Moray and of the Meams rebelled against him, as they 
had rebelled against his half-brother Dimcan, but with 
less success, for he punished them so severely as to gain 
for himself the name of *' the Fierce." We know little of 
this Highland revolt : the interest of the chroniclers of 
Alexander's reign was absorbed by a great ecclesiastical 
dispute. The promise of the conversion of Scotland to 
Roman Christianity suggested a method of strengthening 
the English claims to overlordship b}' the inclusion of 
Scotland within the province of York. Alexander was 
no friend to the Culdees, the protagonists of Celtic Chris- 
tianity. He founded several houses of Austin Canons : 
the greatest of them was the monastery of Scone, which 
he filled with English monks in gratitude for his victory 
over the men of Moray. He assisted the Roman organiza- 
tion by the foundation of the Sees of Moray and Dunkeld, 
and, on his accession, he filled up the bishopric of St. 
Andrews, which had been vacant since the death of the 
last Celtic Bishop in 1093. He chose, for this purpose, 
Turgot, his mother's confessor and biographer. A ques- 
tion immediately arose as to Turgot 's consecration. He 
was Prior of Durham, and he wished to be consecrated by 
the Archbishop of York, who claimed jurisdiction over 
Scotland. Alexander's love for England and for Rome 
was not strong enough to overbear his sense of what was 
fitting for a King of Scotland. He consented, indeed, to 



Turgot's consecration, " saving the rights " of the Churches 
of St. Andrews and of York alike, but when he found that 
the new Bishop really regarded himself as a suffragan of 
York, he made his position impossible, and Turgot retired 
from the unfriendly Culdees of St. Andrews, to die in peace 
at Durham in 1115. The claim of York to authority over 
Scotland was disputed at Canterbury, for Gregory the 
Great had given to St. Augustine authority over " all the 
priests in Britain." Alexander, on Turgot's death, in- 
vited the Archbishop of Canterbury to send as Bishop of 
St. Andrews the historian Eadmer, the friend and bio- 
grapher of St. Anselm. Eadmer came to Scotland, but 
he was never consecrated. " Not for all Scotland will I 
renounce being a monk of Canterbury," he said ; and 
Alexander realized that he had made a second blunder. 
Eadmer returned to England, an attempt at reconcilia- 
tion failed, and the see was vacant until the death of 
Eadmer, who, though never consecrated, had been duly 
elected and invested. Just before his own death, Alex- 
ander was able to make his first successful nomination to 
the See of St. Andrews. He chose Robert, the Prior of 
his new monastery at Scone, and the question of conse- 
cration was settled, though not until after Alexander's 
death, by the performance of the rite by the Archbishop 
of York, again without prejudice either to the claims of 
his own see or to the freedom of the Scottish Church. 
Alexander knew that Robert was Roman enough and 
English enough to deal sternly with the Culdees, but not 
sufficiently English to compromise the claims of Scotland 
to ecclesiastical independence, and he signalized his ap- 
pointment by the restoration to the Church of St. Andrews 
of the land known as the Boar's Chase, in the neighbour- 
hood of the town, where the traditional boar, familiar to 
readers^of Boece, had been captured in prehistoric days. 
In April, 1124, Alexander died. He left no child — for- 



tunately, if we accept an English chronicler's account of 
his wife, Sybilla, an illegitimate daughter of Henry I. — • 
and his brother David reigned in his stead. 

Under David I. (1124-1153) the Lowlands made rapid 
progress towards the complete adoption of English 
civilization. The influences which had been at work in 
Scotland since 1066 had never been those of Saxon 
England before the Conquest. The career of Edgar the 
Atheling shows how far the survivors of the Saxon Royal 
House were from adopting an attitude of irreconcilable 
antagonism to the JsTormans : Queen Margaret herself had 
been " the beloved daughter in the Lord " of Lanfranc, 
the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, and her son 
Edgar owed his throne to Xorman authority. Under 
David, Norman influence became predominant. He had 
lived for some years at the Court of his brother-in-law, 
Henry L, and he married the widow of a Xorman Baron. 
His work is thus summarized by his panegyrist, Ailred : 

" The whole barbarity of his nation was softened, and 
immediately submitted itself to a King of so great benevo- 
lence and^humihty : as if forgetting their natural fierce- 
ness, they submitted their necks to the laws which the 
royal gentleness dictated, and received with gladness the 
peace which till then they did not know." 

The same impression was left upon succeeding genera- 
tions of Scotsmen. " He did his utmost," says John of 
Fordun,* about two centuries after his death, " to draw 
on his rough and boorish people towards quiet and chas- 
tened manners." Ailred unduly minimizes the difficulties 
which David had to meet, but he knew weU the strength 
of the forces behind the King. Church, Court, Law, and 
Commerce combined to lay the foundations of the struc- 

* An Aberdeen priest, died about 1384; wrote part of the Scoti- 



ture of Anglo-Norman civilization in Scotland. It is in 
the reign of David I. that the Culdees were finally crushed. 
The extension of the diocesan episcopate in his reign 
placed the Roman Church, if not at once in supreme 
control over Scotland, yet in a position which assured 
the ultimate possession of such control. Alexander had 
founded the Sees of Moray and Dunkeld, and David, as 
Earl, had restored the bishopric of Glasgow ; as King, 
he created the Sees of Aberdeen, Ross, Caithness, Brechin, 
Dunblane, and Galloway. Divisions into parishes soon 
followed the creation of dioceses, and the Church in Scot- 
land became fully organized. The foundation of a large 
number of important religious houses, including Holy- 
rood, Melrose, Kelso, and Dryburgh in the South, and 
Cambuskenneth and Kinross north of the Forth, made 
David, in the words of his less pious successor, James I., 
a " sair sanct for the Crown." It would be absurd to 
accuse David of lack of generosity, but his donations were 
not confined to royal revenues, for Culdee houses were 
used for the endowment of bishoprics or transferred to 
new owners. The history of the Culdee Priory of Loch- 
leven is an illustration of the royal methods : 

" Know ye that I have granted and given the island 
of Lochleven to the Canons of St. Andrews, that there 
they may settle an order of Canons, and the Culdees who 
shall be found there, if they wish to live in obedience to 
the Rule, may remain in peace with them and under 
them. But if any of them should offer resistance, I will 
and command that they be cast out of the island." 

Royal injunctions could not change, within the limits 
of a single reign, the religious customs of a nation, and 
we find references to the Culdees long after this, though 
it was only here and there that they succeeded in main- 
taining their existence. The St. Andrews Culdees were 
strong enough to secure from David better terms than 



their brethren at Lochleven, for if they refused to become 
Canons Regular, they were to be left undisturbed for 
their lifetime, and Culdees gave trouble to the Bishop of 
St. Andrews as late as 1309. A contemporary English 
chronicler, Gervase of Canterbury, says that there were 
Culdee houses in the bishoprics of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, 
Brechin, Ross and Dunblane in the beginning of the 
thirteenth century, and we find them still at Brechin in 
the fourteenth century : so that it took nearly two hundred 
years to root them out. The fate of the Culdees decided, 
to a considerable extent, the fortunes of the Gaelic tongue 
in the district between the Moray Firth and the Forth ; 
for the Roman Church discouraged the use of Gaelic, 
even in cases when it was the duty of a layman to baptize 
an infant on the point of death. Twelfth-century grants 
made to the Clerks of Deer are recorded in Gaelic in the 
Booh of Deer, a volume containing Latin versions of por- 
tions of the Gospels, a fragment of an Office for the Visita- 
tion of the Sick, and the Apostles' Creed. These entries 
are an indication of the language of Aberdeenshire in the 
middle of the twelfth century. Mr. Magnus Maclean, in 
his Literature of the Celts, points out that, in the Book 
of Deer, 

" There is no hint of any language other than Latin 
and Gaelic. . . . [The Gaelic entries] all relate to grants 
of land and other privileges given from time to time to 
the monastery of that name. At Banff and Aberdeen, 
in the early part of the twelfth century, the book was 
produced in the King's courts in evidence of the rights 
of the clerics to the land in question, and their claim was 
thereby substantiated. The entries were made at dif- 
ferent times, from the end of the tenth or the beginning 
of the eleventh century down to the middle of the twelfth." 

David gave a charter to these Aberdeenshire Culdees, 
and it is possible that this charter was connected with 



some change in their organization. Early in the thir- 
teenth century they seem to have disappeared, for in 
1219 a Cistercian monastery was founded at Deer, and 
it is probably to the influence of these Cistercian monks 
that we should trace in part the supersession of Gaelic by 
the Aberdeenshire Doric of the Buchan district. 

The English tongue prevailed in the Court as well as 
in the Church, and David's grants of land to his courtiers 
played no less a part in the Anglicization of Scotland 
than did the organization of diocesan episcopacy or the 
foundation of religious houses. David, like Edward the 
Confessor, felt deeply the fascination of the brave and 
handsome Norman nobles who were, in the twelfth cen- 
tury as in the eleventh, wandering over Europe in search 
of lands not less than of adventure. The witnesses of 
his charters were usually the bearers of Norman names ; 
the greatest names of Scottish history — the Bruces and 
the Stewarts (FitzAlans) — are among those on whom he 
conferred great tracts of country. Edgar addressed his 
subjects as " Scots and English ": David recognizes 
" French " as well. The significance of David's grants 
of land is of supreme importance in any discussion of the 
problem of the racial complexion of Scotland. It is im- 
portant to realize their extent. To Robert de Brus was 
given in 1124 the territory of Annandale, extending over 
200,000 acres, and including some twenty parishes ; to 
De Moreville David granted Cunningham, the northern 
division of Ajrrshire ; and to FitzAlan large portions of 
Kyle (Mid-Ayrshire) and of the county of Renfrew. 
These districts were not in rebellion, and we read of no 
dispossession of existing owners, no displacement of an 
old population. It has been suggested that there was 
much waste land in the Scotland of David I., but Cun- 
ningham and Kyle and Renfrew were not uninhabited. 
The explanation is that David did not interfere with the 



ownership of land as it existed before these grants : the 
result of his intervention was ultimately to confirm it. 
What he gave to his Norman friends consisted rather of 
rights over land than of land itself. The old landowners 
became the tenants of the new landlord, and passed under 
his influence. Their rights were secured to them by 
charters from their new lord, and they were not unwdlling 
to exchange the uncertain title of ancient custom for the 
written bond. The ancient land system had not been 
tribal ; the land was held by the near kin of the senior of 
each family, and the majority of the tribe had little to 
lose by the new system of tenure. The cottars remained 
cottars, and the serfs continued to be serfs. The new 
tenant-in-chief, who held directly from the King, and of 
whom all lesser tenants held their lands, built castles and 
lived in them with his family and retainers. He became 
the centre of provincial life, and a petty King upon his 
wide domain. The band of personal followers whom he 
had brought with him, or attracted to his standard, were 
not merely his bodyguard and the mstruments wherewith 
he carried out his purposes. They changed the civiliza- 
tion of the neighbourhood, and the older inhabitants fol- 
lowed their manner of life and accepted their tradition 
of obedience to then lord ; when surnames became usual, 
they called themselves by his name. Thus were formed, 
in the reigns of David and his successors, the great 
Scottish families. There was an influx of fresh blood, an 
intermarrying, a change of custom, a gradual change of 
speech ; but there is no evidence of any racial displace- 

What David had done was, in fact, to introduce the 
feudal system into Scotland. The new great men of the 
kingdom held of him by written charters, and the old 
Celtic nobility were glad to follow their example, and to 
secure their rights. Alexander and David held Great 



Councils, like those of the Norman Kings of England, 
and introduced into the kingdom the feudal officers who 
superseded the old Mormaers with whom the Kings had 
taken counsel. The Constable, the Justiciar, the Chan- 
cellor, the Chamberlain, the Steward, and the Marshal, all 
date from the reigns of the sons of Queen Margaret, and 
all, or almost all, the first holders of these offices were 
Anglo-Normans. The De Morevilles became hereditary 
Constables of the kingdom, the Fitz Alans hereditary 

" Forgetting their natural fierceness," says David's 
friend and admirer, Ailred, " the Scots submitted their 
necks to the laws which the royal gentleness dictated." 
There came a day when the natural fierceness was remem- 
bered, for David's measures were too far-reaching to 
escape opposition from a people who not long before had 
insisted that all Englishmen and Frenchmen should be 
driven from the land. In 1130, Angus, the Earl of Moray, 
and his brother Malcolm MacHeth raised a rebellion 
while David was on a visit to Henry 1. The Constable 
led a royal force against them, and the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle tells that " Angus was slain by the Scots army, 
and a great slaughter was there made with him. There 
was God's right avenged on him, because he was all for- 
sworn." But Malcolm maintained the struggle for five 
years, until David summoned Barons from the North of 
England to his aid, captured Malcolm, and made large 
grants of land in Moray to his Anglo-Norman friends. 
There is a strange tale of one Wimund, an episcopal im- 
postor, who pretended to be a son of Angus, and gave 
David some trouble in his later years. The English 
chronicler, William of Newburgh,* who knew him when 
he was a blind prisoner in the Abbey of Byland, says 

^ Born 1136, died about 1198; author of the Historia Beriim 



that he was an obscure and unlettered EngHshman, who 
began life as an incompetent antiquary, and was made 
Bishop of Man because he was eloquent, robust, and 
cheerful. If this is so, his achievement is the more 
remarkable, for he seems to have roused the Highlands 
and islands, and to have been so successful in raiding 
Scotland that David was glad to make terms with him, 
and gave him Furness Abbey and a district of Cumbria. 
The story of his fall does not belong to Scottish history. 
The whole episode might be dismissed as the product of 
Wimund's imagination, were it not that the tale of William 
of Newburgh, to whom the poor old man boasted of his 
deeds, is confirmed by Ailred. Newburgh and Rievaulx 
were near each other, and Ailred may have learned the 
story from William, but he is not likely to have been 
deceived about the occurrence of a serious insurrection 
in Scotland. 

Celtic Scotland might rage against David's new friends, 
but to the influence of Church and Land and Law in his 
reign was being added the effect of the growth of com- 
merce. Fordun tells us that David " enriched the ports 
of his kingdom with foreign merchandise, and to the 
wealth of his own land added the riches and luxuries of 
foreign nations, changing its coarse stuffs for precious 
vestments, and covering its ancient nakedness with purple 
and fine linen." John of Fordun was a fourteenth- 
century Aberdonian who possessed a conscientious objec- 
tion to the kilt, and rejoiced that in his own good town 
the inhabitants wore a decent, peaceful, and respectable 
dress, quite unlike the unsightly garb of their country- 
men in the Highlands. His words imply that the Scots 
between the Moray Firth and the Forth were led to 
abandon the ancient dress by the increase of wealth which 
began in the reign of David. It is not improbable, for 
we know that there came to Scotland in the twelfth 



century many foreign merchants, Flemish as well as 
English. Flemings settled in large numbers along the 
East Coast, from Berwick to Inverness, and there are 
many traces of them in Aberdeenshire. The Flemings 
were weavers from of old, and with the new cloths the 
Scots would also learn new fashions. They certainly 
learned the word "tailor," which about this time was 
borrowed by Gaelic from English. There were, of course, 
towns in Scotland before the reign of David, and there 
were already federations of burghs north and south of 
the Grampians. The northern burghs were Aberdeen, 
Banff, Elgin, Forres, Nairn, and Inverness. The southern 
federation, consisting of the four burghs of Berwick, Box- 
burgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, developed ultimately into 
the Convention of Royal Burghs, which played a great 
part in the national life. There were no Royal Burghs 
till the reign of David's grandson, William the Lion ; but 
codes of burghal regulations were drawn up in David's 
reign, and the King granted many privileges to burgesses 
and merchants. He confirmed to them the right of 
choosing their own magistrates, he gave them monopolies 
within their own districts, and he encouraged fishing and 
weaving. He stimulated the commercial enterprise of 
the great religious houses, which engaged both in trading 
and in banking. The fisheries of the Abbot of Holjrood 
received his protection, and the Abbot of Dunfermhne 
was given freedom from customs for his ship. The 
Flemish trade of the monks of Mehose was so important 
that they were granted special privileges by the Count 
of Flanders. All over Scotland religious houses were 
endowed with revenues derived from the customs, and 
their interest in commercial prosperity was correspond- 
ingly increased. 

Burghal laws and burghal privileges in Scotland were 
largely, though not entirely, based on English precedents, 



and there can be no doubt that the population of the 
towns on the East Coast was affected by an influx of 
Enghshmen and Flemings. William of Newburgh, a con- 
temporary chronicler, speaking of a later period in the 
twelfth century, asserts that " the towns and burghs of 
the Scottish kingdom are known to be inhabited by 
Englishmen." There certainly were Englishmen in them, 
but if William meant to say that the population was 
English, he must have been availing himself of the 
chronicler's privilege of exaggeration, as did William of 
Malmesbury when he asserted that London was a Danish 
town at the beginning of the reign of Edward the Con- 
fessor. General statements of this kind have little value, 
whether they are made in the twelfth century or in the 
twentieth, and medieval chroniclers' estimates of figures 
are peculiarly fallacious. The fact that the Commons 
House of Parliament in 1340 imagined that there were 
45,000 parishes in England, instead of about 9,000, 
illustrates the value of general impressions, and we need 
not pay too much attention to vague statements made 
by English writers about Scotland. The nineteenth- 
century writer in the Encyclopcedia Metropolitana, who 
located Aberdeen on the banks of the Forth, was prob- 
ably as good an authority upon Scottish burghs as 
William of Newburgh. Yet there was some justifica- 
tion for William's statement. The town population in 
the Lothians was chiefly composed of English and Flem- 
ings, and, as we have said, the presence of Englishman 
and Fleming in the towns north of the Forth is un- 
deniable. In the interior of Aberdeenshire, Gaelic names 
are to English as three to one, on the coast as two to 
three. It must, however, be remembered that English 
names are not necessarily a proof of English race. Some 
of the town-names, like Turnberry on the coast of Ayr, 
and Burghead on the Moray Firth, were doubtless given 



by Englishmen as English commerce opened up new sea- 
ports ; but others are translations or corruptions of 
Gaelic names, which ceased to be familiar to a people 
who were becoming English-speaking. Thus Edderton, 
near Tain, though sufficiently English in appearance, is 
Eadar duin, " the town between the hillocks "; Falkirk, 
the fourteenth-century Eawkirc {Varia Capella), is a 
translation of Eaglais breac, " the speckled church "; Earl- 
ston is Ercheldon or Ercildune ; Almond is a corruption 
of Amhuinn, a river ; and Glen Howl is Gleann-a-ghabail, 
"the glen of the fork." 

The racial complexion of Scotland in the twelfth cen- 
tury deserves more study than it has received. It has 
been too readily assumed that the whole of the coast 
counties between Fife and Inverness were, at some period, 
subjected to what amounted to a racial displacement. 
Except for a doubtful statement with regard to Moray, 
no evidence in support of this theory has ever been pro- 
duced, and we have therefore discarded it here. English 
historians, bent on defending Edward I., have found it 
useful to assume that the farmers and artisans of Fife 
and of the coast districts north of the Tay were " North- 
umbrian Englishmen " who unnaturally opposed an Eng- 
lish monarch. Sir Walter Scott had found a similar 
assumption equally useful for romance, and it has received 
ready acquiescence. We have tried to summarize such 
evidence as exists. It shows that English landowners 
came to Scotland with bodies of retainers, that English 
clerks became Scottish Bishops and monks, that English 
traders opened up Scottish commerce. It shows that 
English civilization and law, and the religion and the 
language of England, gradually superseded the customs 
and the language of the Gaels. But change of speech 
does not imply change of race, and not only is there no 
positive evidence of a racial displacement, but there are 



distinct indications of its absence. In spite of English, 
French, and Scandinavian influences, Celtic place-names 
in Scotland outnumber all others by nearly ten to one.* 
Again, there is no evidence in medieval Scottish history 
or literature of anything like racial antagonism. The 
bitter consciousness of racial difference which existed 
between the English and the Welsh, and between the 
English and the Irish, finds no parallel in Scotland. 
Writer after writer tells us that the Highlanders are 
Scotsmen who have retained the ancient Scottish customs 
and the ancient Scottish tongue. " The wild Scots speak 
Irish," wrote John Major in the reign of James IV. ; " the 
civilized Scots use English. But most of us spoke Irish 
a short time ago." " Those of us who live on the borders 
of England," says his contemporary. Hector Boece, 
" have forsaken our own tongue and learned English, 
being driven thereto by wars and commerce. But the 
Highlanders remain just as they were in the time of 
Malcolm Canmore, in whose days we began to adopt 
English manners." The same view is expressed by two 
foreign observers, contemporaries of Major and Boece — 
Pedro de Ayala, the Spanish Ambassador, and Polydore 
Vergil, the historian. 

We have been tracing, from the reign of Malcolm Can- 
more to that of David I., the beginnings in the Lowlands 
of influences similar to those which have affected the 
Highlands since the suppression of the last Jacobite 
rising. They had already produced important effects 
within the " Sixty Years Since " of the second title of 
Waverley, and they are still in operation. The Skye of 
to-day is not the Skye which Dr. Johnson saw in 1773, 
but there has been no racial dispossession, only the silent 
conquest of civilization and language. The difference 
between Skye and Forfar is that the influences which 

* Johnston, Place-Names of Scotland, p. xvii. 




have been at work on the west coast for a hundred and 
sixty years have been in operation on the east coast for 
eight centuries. There have been those who anticipated 
a more rapid change in the west. Sir Thomas Craig, the 
learned Scottish lawyer and statesman of the reign of 
James VI., thought that the Anglicization of the High- 
lands would take place within the seventeenth century, 
and his words, recently published for the first time, are a 
fresh illustration of our argument. 

" I myself remember the time when the inhabitants of 
the shires of Stirling and Dumbarton spoke pure Gaelic. 
But nowadays that tongue is almost relegated to Argyll 
and the Orkneys, so that one rarely comes upon any who 
speak it. There is not a single chieftain in the High- 
lands and islands who does not either speak or at least 
understand English ; and even in the Orkneys and Shet- 
land, where in the course of this [the sixteenth] century 
nothing but Norse was spoken, the ministers of God's 
word now use English in church, and are well enough 
understood. Many also write in that language, and if 
(as I understand is the case) a London Merchant Com- 
pany is to be formed to exploit the fishing in Skye and 
the Lewis, and if in consequence troops are sent thither 
and a settlement is made for the workmen employed in 
the fishing, and if schools are established, I have not the 
slightest doubt that before the [seventeenth] century is 
over Gaelic will no longer be spoken on the mainland 
and islands of Scotland." * 

The words were a prophecy not destined at once to be 
fulfilled, but they are also a history of what had actually 
happened in the Lowlands. The influences of landlords, 
settlements, the Church, education, and commerce, had 
changed the face of one portion of Scotland as Sir Thomas 
Craig thought they were about to change the face of 

* De Unione Begnorum Britannice^ translated by Terry. Scot. 
Hist. Society. 



another portion. We shall have opportunities of showing 
that Scottish history does not bear out Mr. Freeman's 
contention that the narrative of Anglo-Scottish warfare 
is the story of how " the true Scots, out of hatred to the 
' Saxons ' nearest to them, leagued with the Saxons 
farther off "; but it is necessary to introduce the topic 
at this point, even at the cost of anticipating the course 
of events by many centuries. 

The discussion, indeed, is intimately connected with 
the most important event in the Anglo-Scottish history 
of the reign of David I., of which we have still to speak. 
We have said that he had married the widow of a Norman 
Baron ; it is even more important that the lady was the 
daughter of the murdered Waltheof of Huntingdon, and 
granddaughter of Siward, Earl of Northumbria, and that 
David received with her the earldom of Huntingdon, 
and a claim to the earldom of Northumberland. " Good 
Queen Mold " had not failed to consider her brother's 
material interests, but claims, and even lands, in England 
were a dangerous possession for the King of Scots. 
While Henry I. lived, David was content with the lands, 
scattered over several English counties, which made up 
the Honour of Huntingdon : but on the death of his 
brother-in-law he made a great effort to secure his wife's 
heritage of Northumberland. Henry died in December, 
1135. Seven years before, he had summoned the great 
men of England to Windsor to swear that they would 
secure the inheritance of the crown of England to his 
daughter, Matilda, the widow of the Emperor Henry V., 
and David, as Earl of Huntingdon, had been the first 
English layman to take the oath. On the accession of 
Stephen, the King of Scotland, " not unmindful of his 
oath," and even more mindful of his interests, harried 
Northumbria with fire and sword, took possession of the 
country up to the Tees, and laid siege to Durham. " What 



he has taken guilefully, 1 will retake victoriously," said 
Stephen, whose spirit was not yet broken by years of 
adversity ; and he marched northwards " with so great 
an army as none could remember to have been in England 
before." The two monarchs came to terms. David, 
*' influenced both by the mildness of Stephen's manners 
and by the approach of old age, gladly yielded to the 
repose of real or pretended peace," and he was satisfied 
to retain Carlisle and restore Newcastle and his other 
conquests. His son, Prince Henry, " did homage to King 
Stephen, and the King gave him Carlisle and Doncaster, 
besides his father's earldom of Huntingdon." Stephen 
also hinted at the possibility of a grant of Northumbria, 
and he irritated the Archbishop of Canterbury by placing 
Prince Henry at his right hand at a feast in London. 
The courtiers retaliated by some insult to Henry, and 
David refused to allow him to accept any more invitations 
to Stephen's Court. He was probably already meditat- 
ing his second invasion of England, the most important 
event of which was the Battle of the Standard. In 1137, 
at the head of an army, he demanded his son's maternal 
inheritance of Northumbria. Stephen "by no means 
agreed," and early in 1138 David entered England with 
his following of men, " neither subdued by bitter cold 
nor stunted by severe hunger, and confident in their light 
armour and their swiftness of foot." The English 
chroniclers surpass themselves in describing the horrors 
of the march of " that execrable army, savager than any 
race of heathen, honouring neither God nor man "; and, 
conventional as the descriptions are, it is, unfortunately, 
impossible to doubt that the ferocity of David's army 
must remain a grave stain upon his reputation. He was, 
indeed, a " sair sanct " for the North of England. 
Stephen, also at the head of an army, avenged David's 
victims by harrying in Scotland before the English faced 

AlexiiiKlei I. 11107-1124). > 

David I. (1124-1153). 

- i 

William the Lion 11105-1214) 

Alexander 11. U214-124'J). 

Alexander 111. il24'J-12S(>). 


Paf/e 61. 


the Scots on the field, and it was not until August 22, 
1138, that the two armies met at Cowton Moor, near 

The English chroniclers represent the Anglo-Norman 
Barons, who possessed lands both in Scotland and Eng- 
land, as doing their utmost to bring about a reconcilia- 
tion, and tell how Robert de Bruce and Bernard de 
Balliol tried in vain to dissuade David from fighting. 
Ailred of Rievaulx puts into the mouth of Bruce a long 
speech, the chief interest of which is that it indicates 
what the chronicler himself believed to be the founda- 
tions of David's authority. Bruce protests against 
" attacking with arms to-day those by whose aid hitherto 
thou hast ruled the Scots by affection, the Galwegians 
by terror," and he addresses David in words which show 
the intimacy in which the Scottish King lived with the 
Anglo-Norman Barons, the friends of his youth at the 
English Court, the recipients of his generosity in Scot- 
land. The appeal was unheeded and Bruce and Balliol 
returned to the English army. Perhaps David would 
have yielded if he could, but his wild host, inspirited by 
a victory in a skirmish at Clitheroe in the preceding June, 
was not to be restrained. The Scottish army is described 
by the English chroniclers as composed of Frenchmen, 
Angles, Picts, and Scots. The Frenchmen were David's 
new landowners, knights in coats of mail ; the Angles were 
the English of Lothian, and retainers of Anglo-Norman 
nobles, armed with bow and arrow. It was David's in- 
tention to give the Angles the honour of the first attack 
upon the long English line. " All the armed men, knights 
and archers, whom they had were to go before the rest of 
the army, so that armed men should attack armed men, and 
knights engage with knights, and arrows resist arrows." 
Picts and Scots were to follow up with sword and targe. 
This plan of battle was bitterly opposed by "the Picts, 



who are commonly called Galwegians," and the opposition 
of the Galwegians, the Picts south of the Forth, was 
strengthened by the adhesion of a great Perthshire Baron 
of Celtic blood, Malise, Earl of Strathearn. They assured 
David that he need not fear the knights and their iron 
tunics : "We surely have iron sides, a breast of bronze, a 
mind void of fear, our feet have never known flight, nor 
our backs a wound." They had beaten mail-clad French- 
men at Clitheroe : they would beat them again to-day. 

David yielded, and rearranged his forces. The Gallo- 
way Picts were placed in the van ; the men of Lothian, 
with islanders and Highlanders from Lorn, on the left ; 
mailed knights, and men from Cumbria and Teviotdale, 
on the right. The reserve was commanded by the King 
in person ; it was composed of the men of Moray and the 
" Scots " from the eastern districts north of the Forth. 
David had also a bodyguard of English and Norman 
knights. There was clearly a political as well as a 
military purpose in an arrangement by which the English 
of Lothian were to fight side by side with the wild clans- 
men of the west. So this strange battle was fought for 
three hours of an August day. The King of Scots, with 
an army of Celts, English, and Normans, was champion- 
ing the cause of an English Queen against an Anglo- 
Norman army led by two Norman Barons, one of whom, 
three or four years before, had been his ally in sup- 
pressing the Celtic rising in Moray. The warriors of 
Galloway rushed on the foe with " a yell of horrible 
sound." Albani, Albani I they shouted — " the war-cry 
of their fathers." The wild onslaught had at first some 
effect upon the English spearmen, but soon " the frailty 
of the Scottish lances was mocked by the denseness of 
iron and wood," as " the whole nation of the Normans 
and the English stood massed together in one array 
around the standard," above them a silver pyx, to invoke 



the Divine assistance against the desecrators of churches. 
The Galwegians showed dauntless courage. " Like a 
hedgehog with its quills, so would you see a Galwegian 
bristling all round with arrows, and none the less brandish- 
ing his sword, and in blind madness rushing forward, now 
smiting a foe, now beating the air with vain blows." 
The courage of naked men could not long avail against 
mailed columns. On the left, the leader of the men of 
Lothian was struck down. " He fell, and his whole 
nation turned in flight, for God was offended, and all their 
valour was broken like spiders' webs." The Scottish 
right was led by Prince Henry. While the men of 
Galloway and of Lothian were wavering, the Prince 
dashed through the English left ; but his infantry failed 
to follow, and, with his band of mounted knights of the 
royal household, he went on, unsupported, pursuing the 
retreating foe. David then brought up the reserve, and 
" the Scots and Picts held out with difficulty from the 
first hour when the struggle commenced unto the third ; 
they saw themselves pierced and transfixed with the 
arrows, and, overwhelmed and distressed, they all slipped 
away from the field, casting their baggage from them, 
and in scorn of them the place is called Bagmoor." 
Prince Henry and his followers foimd themselves separ- 
ated from the retreating army by the victorious English 
host, and, casting away their banners, they mixed with 
the foe, and, unrecognized, succeeded in passing through 
the pursuers. Three days later they safely rejoined King 
David at Carlisle. 

The Battle of the Standard was fiercely fought, and 
the beaten army suffered cruelly both in the action and 
in the flight. But its importance in Anglo-Scottish rela- 
tions is small, and its significance in military history 
consists merely in its being the first of many lessons, 
never learned by the Scots, that rushes of unmailed 



clansmen could never vanquish spearmen and archers. 
"It is," says Professor Oman, " the forerunner of Dup- 
plin, Halidon Hill, Flodden, and Pinkie." The retreat 
was not a mere rout, and even though, according to 
E-ichard of Hexham, " the English and the Scots and 
the Picts and the rest of the barbarians " of David's arm}^ 
fell out by the way, the King was strong enough to 
besiege the castle of Wark. The intervention of a Papal 
Legate brought about peace, and in April, 1139, a treaty 
was concluded between David and Queen Maud, the wife 
of Stephen. It secured to Prince Henry the earldom of 
Northumberland as an English fief, and the Scottish 
border-line was advanced to the Tees, although New- 
castle and Bamborough were retained by Stephen. The 
fruits of victory had fallen to the vanquished, but 
this great concession proved insufficient to keep David 
loyal to Stephen. When the Empress Matilda captured 
her rival in 1141, David at once set out for his niece's 
Court, where he received scant courtesy. He was present 
at the defeat of the Empress near Winchester, and had 
to " betake himself hastily back to his own kingdom." 
In 1149, when Henry Fitz-Empress came to England, he 
was knighted by David at Carlisle, and he promised that, 
if he regained his mother's crown, he would give to the 
King of Scots Newcastle and the whole territory between 
Tweed and Tjne. David and Henry led an army to 
Lancaster, but their ally, the Earl of Chester, deserted 
them, and Henry fled to Normandy. This was David's 
last intervention in English affairs. When Henry made 
his successful invasion in 1153, the Scottish King was 
within a few months of his death. 

The visit of the Papal Legate after the Battle of the 
Standard not only brought about an agreement with 
Stephen : it also put the seal upon the ecclesiastica 
settlement of St. Margaret and her sons. The Scots, sayg 



Richard of Hexham,* " had long differed from the 
Cisalpine, and indeed almost from the Universal Church ;" 
now they received the commands of Innocent II., and 
his Legate " corrected what was to be corrected, and 
decreed what was to be decreed." He made the Picts 
promise to bring back to England all captive English 
women and girls, and they undertook in future wars to 
respect churches, and " to slay no one at all unless he 
opposed them." He made no attempt to settle the 
vexed question of the ecclesiastical relations between 
Scotland and England, but in 1155, according to a docu- 
ment of uncertain authenticity, Hadrian IV., the English 
Pope, informed the Scottish Bishops that the Archbishop 
of York was their Metropolitan, and that, " laying aside 
every pretext," they must reverence and obey him. 

David's closing years were saddened by the death, in 
1152, of his son Henry, " pride of youths, glory of knights, 
joy of old men," the friend and playmate of Ailred, who 
describes him as beautiful to look upon, gentle and 
humble, chaste and pious, bold and courageous against 
the foe, beloved of all. Henry left three sons — Malcolm 
and William, successively Kings of Scotland, and David, 
who became Earl of Huntingdon, the progenitor of 
the claimants to the throne at the time of the War of 
Independence. In the reign of the Maiden King, Mal- 
colm IV., who succeeded his grandfather in 1153, the 
Anglo-Celtic dynasty was for the last time placed in grave 
peril by the struggles of the Scots against the influences 
which, after almost a century, were ceasing to be new, 
and the record of Malcolm's twelve years of rule may 
fitly close the period of Anglicization. When he came 
to the throne he was only a boy of twelve, and the men 
of Moray seized the opportunity of rebelling. Their 
leader was Donald MacHeth, son of the Malcolm who had 

* Fl. 1138-1154, Prior of Hexham. 



been captured in 1135, and he had a powerful ally in his 
father-in-law Somerled, under-King of Argyll and Lord 
of the Isles. The struggle, of which we know practically 
nothing, lasted for three years, and affected Galloway as 
well as the North. In 1156 Donald MacHeth was cap- 
tured as far away from Moray as Whithorn, and was sent 
to join his father, Malcolm MacHeth, who was a prisoner 
in Eoxburgh Castle. They were soon released, and they 
made no further resistance, and, meanwhile, Malcolm fol- 
lowed his grandfather's example in making grants of land 
in Moray. Four years later Malcolm had again to meet 
a Celtic revolt. In the interval he had accompanied 
Henry II. of England to the War of Toulouse, and had 
thereby roused the an ti- English feeling of his subjects. 
" The Scottish chiefs," says the Book of Plitscarden,'^ 
" perceiving that their King was over-friendly with the 
King of England, were sore troubled . . . saying we will 
not have this man to reign over us." The Chronicle of 
Melrose, here a contemporary authority, tells how, on 
Malcolm's return, " having reached the town called Perth, 
he was besieged therein by Earl Ferteth [of Strathearn] 
and five other Earls, who were incensed against him 
because he had gone to Toulouse, and who wished, there- 
fore, to take him prisoner, but this presumptuous design 
was unsuccessful." The men of Galloway, never yet sub- 
dued by a King of Scots, next raised a revolt under their 
lord, Fergus, who may have led them at the Battle of the 
Standard. " Three times," says the Melrose chronicler, 
" did King Malcolm lead a large army into Galloway, and 
at length he conquered them." The Chronicle of Holy- 
rood adds the interesting fact that " Fergus, Prince of 
Galloway, assumed the dress of a Canon in the Church of 
the Holy Rood of Edinburgh," and endowed it with lands 
near Kirkcudbright. Thus David's Anglo-Norman abbey 

* Written circa 1461-1496, largely based on the Scotichronicon. 



came to possess an influence over the Celts of Galloway. 
King Malcolm's troubles were not yet over, for " Somer- 
led, the under-King of Argyll, who had been in a state of 
wicked rebellion for twelve years against his natural 
lord, Malcolm, King of Scotland, landed at Renfrew with 
a large army . . . but at length God's vengeance over- 
took him, and he and his son, and a countless number of 
his followers, were there slain by a few of the people of 
that district." Somerled's mysterious death in 1164 left 
the land at peace for the remaining months of Malcolm's 

The troubled reign of a boy in Scotland coincided with 
the strong rule of Henry II. in England. The agreement 
with David in 1149 could scarcely be regarded by Henry 
as binding him in different circumstances, and he was 
not inclined to leave the Northern Counties under the 
dominion of Scotland. At Chester, in 1157, Malcolm met 
Henry, and became his man " in such fashion as his 
grandfather had been the man of the elder King Henry, 
saving all his dignities." With regard to the ancient 
Scottish claims on Cumberland and Westmorland, and 
the more recent demands for Northumberland, Henry 
appealed, says William of Newburgh, " to the authority 
of might," and Malcolm did not dispute the conclusion. 
He gave up the land which David had gained, and re- 
ceived the earldom of Huntingdon. The arrangement 
ought to have satisfied Henry, but next year the two 
Kings met at CarHsle, and parted in enmity, and Henry 
declined to confer on Malcolm the honour of knighthood. 
The ceremony ultimately took place at Tours, on the 
return from the expedition to Toulouse, and in 1163 
Malcolm paid a visit to Henry at Woodstock, and did 
to his son Henry such homage as he had done to the 

Malcolm was in bad health during most of his reign. 



On his English visit in 1163 he was dangerously ill at 
Doncaster, and in December, 1165, he died at Jedburgh, 
in his twenty-fifth year, comets and a great tempest fore- 
telling his end. " He lost not his kingship," says Wilham 
of Newburgh, " but changed it. A man of angehc sin- 
cerity among men, and as it were an angel on earth, the 
heavenly angels snatched him from a world which was 
not worthy of him." He was the last King of Scots to 
bear a Celtic name. 


Bom 1286[?], commanded the left wing of the Scots at Bannockburn, and slain 
in battle, in Spain, iu 1330. 



Malcolm's brother and successor, William the Lion, 
reigned for nearly fifty years (1165-1214). Like his grand- 
father, David L, he set his heart upon the earldom of 
Northumberland, and his ambition spelled disaster for 
Scotland. He was more worldly than Malcolm, says 
William of Newburgh, for he wished to enjoy life, yet even 
in temporal felicity he was less fortunate than his brother, 
who had aimed at simplicity and piety. Probably in the 
hope of obtaining the restoration of the Northern Coimties, 
William, to the great disgust of the Scots, accompanied 
Henry II. to France in 1166. He " won glorious honours 
of chivalry," but Henry declined to hear of any more 
material concession than the earldom of Huntingdon, for 
which William duly did homage. " Wherefore King 
William of Scotland went away unsatisfied," and entered 
into negotiations with Henry's rival, Louis VII., a step 
of little immediate importance, but memorable as the 
original precedent for the Franco-Scottish leagues of the 
future. In 1173 the young Henry of England raised a 
rebellion, in which William saw his opportunity. The 
Scottish King was of little use to his allies in the great 
conspiracy against Henry II. He took some strong- 
holds and besieged Carlisle, leaving a portion of his army 
to invest it, while he wasted Northumberland. English 
and Scottish chroniclers give inconsistent details of his 




proceedings, but there is nothing to his credit except his 
courage at the moment when, " by the ordering of God's 
loving-kindness, he was saved from the shedding of man's 
blood." On a misty morning in July, 1174, an English 
force was pressing on to Alnwick Castle, which was 
besieged by the Scots. As they approached the castle, 
the mist cleared away, and they saw a troop of Scottish 
horsemen tilting in an open field. Among them was 
King William. At first he thought the strangers were 
some of his own men returning with their spoil ; as they 
came nearer he realized his error, and, calling on his men 
to follow him, he rushed upon the enemy. His horse was 
killed, and he was thrown to the ground, a captive. 
There was no attempt at a rescue, and by nightfall 
William found himself a prisoner at Richmond. It was 
the day on which Henry II. concluded his penance at 
the grave of Becket, and, when the news reached London, 
" the King rejoiced much with great joy, and gave thanks 
to God and Thomas the Martyr." Henry had good 
reason for joy, but the effect of William's capture upon 
the course of the rebellion is no part of our story. We 
must follow the King of Scotland to Northampton, 
where he was brought to Henry " with his feet shackled 
beneath the belly of his horse " ; he was taken by 
Portsmouth and Barfleur to Caen, and finally to 
Falaise. At Falaise, in December, he became the vassal 
of Henry for all his possessions, " and expressly for Scot- 
land and Galloway." As security for the fulfilment of 
the Treaty, Henry received the castles of Roxburgh, 
Berwick, Jedburgh, Stirling, and the Maiden Castle of 
Edinburgh. With the liberties of the Crown were sur- 
rendered those of the Church, and Scottish Bishops and 
Abbots acknowledged the authority of an English arch- 
bishopric, though they judiciously left open the question 
between Canterbury and York. 



In 1175 the Lion returned ignominiously to Scotland. 
The Scots had resented the friendly visits of Malcolm and 
William to Henry's armies, and the new vassal of England 
was not likely to have his troubles to seek. Immediately 
after William's capture a revolt had broken out in Gallo- 
way under the sons of Fergus, the monk of Holyrood. 
The rebellion was supported by Henry II., and William 
did not really regain control over the Galwegians for ten 
years after his return. In 1179 or 1180 he had to make 
an expedition into Ross to put down a Northern pre- 
tender, Donald MacWilliam or Donald Bane, who pro- 
fessed to be a great-grandson of Malcolm Canmore ; it 
was only temporarily successful, for Donald gave trouble 
in the following year, and in 1187 William was compelled 
to march against him with a large army. Galloway, 
under its new ruler, Roland, became a faithful ally of the 
King of Scots, and it fell to Roland to defeat Donald 
Bane, and to bring his head to William at Inverness. 
Twice again before the close of his life William had to 
fight in the North. Harold, Earl of Caithness, who, like 
Donald Bane, was related to the King, rebelled in 1196, 
and it required three campaigns to restore the royal 
authority in Caithness. Finally, in 1211, a son of Donald 
Bane, called Guthred, invaded Ross, and gave William 
considerable trouble. The English chroniclers intimate 
that he was overcome with English help, a topic upon 
which our Scottish authorities are silent. It is not im- 
possible, for William's relations with England were many 
and varied between the Treaty of Falaise and Guthred 's 
invasion in the last years of his reign. 

The Treaty of Falaise is the one certain fact in the 
much-controverted question of the English supremacy. 
From 1174 until the death of Henry II., fifteen years 
later, Scotland was without dispute a vassal kingdom. 
During these years Henry II. made demands upon the 



King of Scotland which have no parallel, before or 
after, except in the reign of John Balliol. The ac- 
knowledgment of a homage " expressly for Scotland " 
had, in actual fact, changed the position of the Scottish 
King, and this is the best commentary upon the vague 
English claims of the past. When Richard I. succeeded 
to the English throne, his great desire was to obtain 
money for his Crusade, and he sold back to the Lion, 
for 10,000 marks, the rights which had been surren- 
dered at Falaise. Some of the English chroniclers, in- 
cluding William of Newburgh, speak as if the bargain 
between the two Kings had been confined to the restora- 
tion of Scottish castles in English hands, and omit to 
mention " the quit-claiming of fealty and allegiance for 
the kingdom of Scotland." Richard did restore his castles 
to William, but he also " freed him from all conventions 
and compacts which my father King Henry of good 
memory extorted from him by new charters and by his 
capture, so that he do to me fully and entirely what 
Malcolm, King of Scots, his brother, did to our pre- 
decessors of right, and of right ought to have done." 
The new agreement made no attempt at definition. 
William was Richard's liegeman for all the lands for 
which Malcolm had been Henry's liegeman. It was a 
solution which was satisfactory to William at the time, for 
he still cherished the hope of doing homage for North- 
umbria. He was loyal to Richard during John's rebeUion, 
and in 1194, on the King's return from his captivity, he 
asked for Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmor- 
land. The request was refused, only to be repeated after 
Richard's second coronation. William was present at 
the ceremony, and he took the opportunity of offering 
15,000 marks for Xorthumbria. Richard was willing to 
" give him the whole of Northumbria except the castles, 
but the King of Scotland refused to take it without the 

KING JAMES I. (1406-1437). Page 112. 
From the painting in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. 



castles." Once again, in 1195, William pressed his 
claim, as a condition of the marriage of his heiress to 
Richard's nephew, Otto of Saxony, son of Henry the 
Lion, and afterwards the Emperor Otto IV. The Scottish 
Barons objected to the acknowledgment of an heiress to 
the Crown, in prejudice of the heirs male, and the birth 
of William's son Alexander in 1198 put any such project 
out of the question. When John succeeded Richard, 
the importunate Lion demanded his " patrimony," and 
threatened to take it by force. He was prevented from 
carrying out his threat by a Divine warning conveyed 
to him as he lay sleeping by the tomb of St. Margaret at 
Dunfermline. The Book of Pluscarden gives the less 
romantic explanation that all William's " high-minded 
intentions " came to nothing because the Bishops and 
other peace-loving lords brought about a reconciliation, 
and because John had more important business in France. 
After John's coronation, William agreed to give the 
English Kmg six months' time to decide upon his answer ; 
its terms are unknown to us, but John seems to have been 
clever enough to keep the peace by a series of diplomatic 
negotiations, which included a meeting between the two 
Kings at York in 1206. The contemporary chroniclers 
say nothing of this meeting, which is known to us from 
the Patent Rolls ; Fordun mentions it, but says only that 
William returned after transacting his business success- 
fully. There was another meeting in the following year, 
and again the chroniclers are silent. William had cer- 
tainly missed his opportunity when John was engaged in 
losing Normandy, but another seemed to him to occur 
when the English King was at the height of his quarrel 
with the Pope. In 1208 he irritated John by receiving 
fugitive English Bishops, and was threatened with an 
invasion. The chroniclers here take up the tale again, 
but their stories are difficult to follow. William was now 




old and feeble, and he had lost heart and courage ; the 
English Barons were unwilling to fight for their excom- 
municated monarch against " the holy man, that King of 
Scotland for whom God has done several miracles." In 
the end, peace was preserved, and William gave John 
two of his daughters to be married in England, and 
engaged to pay 15,000 marks to the English King. The 
treaty was unpopular in Scotland, says the Melrose 
chronicler, and it has certainly an ugly look. The 
presence of the Scottish Princesses in England suggests 
feudal vassalage, even though there was a proposal to 
marry one of them to the future Henry III. John sent 
them to Corfe Castle, where they had as their companion 
his niece Eleanor, sister of the murdered Arthur of 
Brittany ; he treated them kindly, and sent them finery 
and sweetmeats. One of them married the great Hubert 
de Burgh, and the other became Countess of Norfolk. 
In 1212, at the time of Guthred's rebellion, John and 
William had their last meeting at Durham and Norham. 
William was near his end, and he wanted to secure the 
support of the English King for the throne of his young 
son. John knighted Alexander, then a boy of fourteen, 
and William agreed that John should choose a wife for 
him, thus going nearer to the acknowledgment of feudal 
overlordship than at any time since the agreement with 
Richard I. The Scottish claims in England had all along 
been the wiU-o '-the- wisp which led William the Lion into 
strange places, and they were still the first thought of 
his dotage. To secure Alexander's position, he resigned 
his English lands, and the boy was invested with them. 
Later Scottish chroniclers explain this incident as an 
arrangement by which the heir to the Scottish throne, 
and not the reigning monarch, should do homage for the 
English lands, but the Lion's senile diplomacy is, for the 
Scottish historian, the most awkward portion of the whole 



overlordship controversy. Yet, at the worst, William 
had done no more than make treaties capable of an ad- 
verse interpretation, and his dubious concessions cannot 
be compared with the definite agreements by which 
Kichard I. and John of England successively became the 
vassals of the Emperor and of the Pope. 

If William, dominated in his later years by the fierce 
John, had tended to weaken the ancient claim that the 
Crown of Scotland was an independent sovereignty, his 
ecclesiastical policy had resulted in the freedom of the 
Scottish Church. His relations with the Papacy were 
marked by a quarrel similar to the great dispute between 
John and Innocent III., but with widely different results. 
In 1179 the Canons Regular of St. Andrews elected a 
Bishop named John in defiance of King William, who 
appointed his own chaplain and had him consecrated, in 
spite of an appeal which was pending at Rome. The 
Papal Legate decided against the King, deposed his Bishop, 
and consecrated the rival claimant, whereupon William 
seized the revenues of the bishopric. The Pope appointed 
the Archbishop of York as Legate for Scotland, and in- 
structed him to enforce his decision, and in 1181 the King 
was excommunicated and the country placed under an 
interdict. Almost immediately came the news of the 
death of the Pope, followed by that of the Archbishop of 
York, and " William, King of Scotland, rejoiced with 
great joy, and sent to Rome . . . that he should be 
absolved from excommunication and his land from inter- 
dict, and that if by any means it could be done, John, 
Bishop of St. Andrews, should be deposed." The new 
Pope, Lucius III., at once removed the excommunication 
and the interdict, and sent William the Golden Rose, 
and in the end the royal nominee was restored to St. 
Andrews, and John was consoled with Dunkeld. When 
the controversy reached its termination in 1188, Pope 



Clement III. took the Church in Scotland under the direct 
protection of the Apostolic See, " whose spiritual daughter 
she is, with mediation of none." Thus the Church ob- 
tained its independence a year before the shameful Treaty 
of Falaise was cancelled by Richard I. 

William the Lion died in December, 1214. The reigns 
of his son and grandson, the second and third Alexanders, 
will bring our narrative up to the War of Independence. 
Alexander II. reigned for thirty-five years, and Alex- 
ander III. for thirty-seven, and during neither reign was 
there any serious conflict with England, a circumstance 
almost unprecedented in the past and unparalleled in 
the future until we reach the time of James VI. Alex- 
ander II., hoping to regain Northumberland, sided with 
the English Barons who extorted Magna Charta from 
King John, and, in the course of the remarkable recovery 
of power made by that astute monarch between his 
humiliation at Runnymede and his death, John took the 
Castle of Berwick, burnt the town, and flung a taunt 
at the red-haired Alexander. " We shall hunt the red 
fox-cub from his lairs," said John ; but Alexander avoided 
Berwick, and " hid himself in the remoter districts, being 
still a youth." When John was at a safe distance, 
Alexander invaded Northumberland in the interests of 
the Dauphin Louis, to whom the insurgent Barons had 
offered the English crown. After John's death and the 
defeat of Louis at Lincoln, Alexander made terms with 
the young Henry III., " and did homage," says the 
Melrose chronicler, " for the earldom of Huntingdon, and 
the other lands which his predecessors had held of the 
Kings of England." In 1220 he married the Princess 
Joanna, the eldest sister of Henry III., and about the 
same date the Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh, 
married Alexander's eldest sister, Margaret. These 
marriages had a considerable influence upon the relations 



between the two countries in the first half of Alexander's 
reign. The jealousy of De Burgh's enemies was roused 
by his great alliance ; they accused him of aiming at the 
throne of Scotland, and the Archbishop of Canterbury 
gave him much trouble by disputing the validity of the 
marriage. A proposal that Henry III. should carry out 
John's treaty with William the Lion by marrying another 
Scottish Princess was resented by the English Barons, 
for it was not fitting that the King should marry the 
younger, when the Justiciar was the husband of the 
elder." Alexander had thus an additional grievance 
against the brother-in-law who was still withholding his 
English " patrimony," but they remained on friendly 
terms till the fall of De Burgh in 1232. Henry was the 
ally of the Pope, whose support he purchased with the 
money of his subjects, and he made an attempt to enforce 
the English supremacy, not by war, but through the 
peaceful operation of the commands of the See of St. 

In 1235 Gregory IX. ordered Alexander to renew the 
Treaty of Falaise, and when the Scottish King declined 
to do so, the Pope proposed to send a Legate to Scotland. 
The ingenuous Alexander asserted that no Legate had 
ever yet entered Scotland — a statement that can scarcely 
have deceived the Pope. " Untamed and wild men dwell 
in my land," he told the Legate ; " they thirst for human 
blood, and if they should attack you, I cannot restrain 
them." The dispute between the two Kings was settled 
in conferences held at Newcastle and York in 1236 and 
1237. Their agreement made it safe for Alexander to 
give an ungracious permission to the Legate to enter the 
kingdom, and he paid a short visit and held an ecclesi- 
astical council at Edinburgh. His defiance of the Pope 
had enabled the Scottish King to checkmate Henry's 
diplomacy, and he was wise enough to abandon his claims 



to rule Northumbria. The Treaty of York (1236) pro- 
vided that Alexander should receive 300 libra tes 
of land for his homage. These lands were situated in 
Northumbria, but they involved no political power, 
and it was expressly provided that no castle should 
be erected upon them. Along with his claims to 
the Northumbrian earldom Alexander gave up his fiefs 
in the South of England. All outstanding disputes 
seemed now to be settled, but new difficulties arose almost 
at once. Alexander's Queen, Joanna, had been present 
at the York meeting ; she remained in England on a visit 
to her brother, and died there in 1238. She left no chil- 
dren, and in the following year Alexander married Marie 
de Coucy, the daughter of a great French house. Their 
only child, a son, afterwards Alexander III., born in 
1241, was betrothed to Henry's daughter, Margaret, 
before he was a year old, but the French alliance created 
a permanent distrust. " I suspect the King of France," 
said Henry on one occasion ; "I suspect more the King 
of Scotland." Twice between Alexander's second mar- 
riage and his death the two countries were nearly at war — 
once, in 1242, over a baronial quarrel, and again in 1244, 
when Henry asserted that the Scots were receiving his 
enemies and his exiles, and were building castles against 
him. The English King was so unpopular in his own 
country that his Barons insisted on his making peace. 
The English chronicler, Matthew Paris,* tells how " the 
King of Scotland, a good man, just, pious, and generous, 
was beloved by all, as well by the English as by his own 
subjects," how " he had a very numerous army and 
strong," and " how peace was restored so that the blood 
of Christian men might not cry out to the Lord for ven- 
geance." The agreement now made at Newcastle was 
in substance a confirmation of the Treaty of York of 1236. 
* Monk of St. Albans, died 1259. 



Alexander had not been without domestic troubles ; 
he had suppressed a serious insurrection in Argyll in 
1222, and avenged a ghastly deed of blood in Caithness 
in 1223 ; and the usual revolts of the men of Moray had 
necessitated expeditions to that troubled land. A dis- 
turbance in Galloway in 1234 possesses unusual signifi- 
cance. Its lord, Alan, a great-grandson of the redoubt- 
able Fergus, who had ended his days in the cloistered 
life of Holyrood, died in that year, leaving three daughters. 
The heiresses of this Celtic family had all been married 
to Anglo-Norman Barons, the Earl of Winchester, John 
Balliol, and William of Aumale. The people of Galloway 
preferred the rule of the King of Scotland to that of these 
strangers, and asked Alexander to seize the inheritance. 
" The King was too just to do this," says the Melrose 
chronicler, and " the Galwegians were angry above 
measure." They rose in rebellion, and it required two 
campaigns to subdue them. Finally, in 1249, Alexander 
met his death on an expedition to the Hebrides, which 
he wished to bring more directly under the royal power. 
The relations of the islands to the Crowns of Scotland 
and Norway were very uncertain ; Alexander had recently 
asserted the Scottish claim, and he took the first oppor- 
tunity of attempting to enforce it. The expedition had 
just started when the King fell ill near Oban, and 

"Kerrera's Isle beheld his soul's release, 
Blest fellowship with saints on high to claim." 

He was, says the later Scottish chronicler who quotes 
this epitaph, "a most gentle Prince towards his people, 
a father to the monks, the comforter of the needy, the 
helper of the fatherless, the pitiful hearer and the righteous 
judge of the widow, and to the Church of Christ a second 

The reign of Alexander III. (1249-1286) was regarded 



by later generations, not without reason, as the Golden 
Age of Scottish history, but its opening years saw a 
rehearsal of the obscure intrigues round the person of a 
child-King which will become unpleasantly familiar as 
our story progresses. He was a boy of eight, surrounded 
by many advisers. " But these councillors were so 
many Kings, for he who saw the poor crushed down in 
those days, the nobles bereft of their inheritance, the 
burdens laid upon the people, the violence done to 
churches, might well say, ' Woe unto the land whose 
King is a child !' " Alexander's birth had disappointed 
one of the greatest of his Barons, his cousin, Robert'^Bruce, 
lord of Annandale, a grandson of David, the younger 
brother of William the Lion. Alexander II., despairing 
of a son, had promised the succession to Bruce, who was 
naturally aggrieved by the birth of an heir to the throne. 
Bruce, like many others of the Scottish nobility, held 
lands in England as well as in Scotland, and it was not to 
be expected that these Anglo-Norman families should feel 
much enthusiasm about the independence of the Scottish 
Crown. The minority of the young King was therefore 
a critical period in the relations between Scotland and 
England, and Scotland was fortunate in the circumstance 
that Henry III. occupied the English throne. 

Alexander was crowned in 1249 as the representative of 
the ancient Celtic line, for " no King was ever wont to 
reign in Scotland unless he had, on receiving the name 
of King, sat upon the stone at Scone " — the Stone of 
Destiny, now in the Coronation Chair at Westminster. 
When the religious ceremony was over, a Highland Scot 
proclaimed the boy- King's descent from " Fergus, first 
King of the Scots in Albania," and it is significant that 
henceforth we hear no more of the Morayshire pretenders 
who had contested the claims of his predecessors. Alex- 
ander had been betrothed in his infancy to the Princess 


Margaret of England, and in 1251, at the age of nine, 
he was taken to York to be married, and to receive the 
honour of knighthood from his father-in-law. It is a 
well-informed English chronicler, Matthew Paris, who tells 
how, after Alexander had done homage for his English 
lands, Henry demanded fealty for the Kingdom of Scotland, 
how the child " replied that he had come thither in peace, 
to be allied to the King of England, and not to answer 
difficult questions," and how Henry "passed it over for 
the time in silence." Alexander had doubtless been 
taught what he should say, and before the visit was 
over he made an appeal to the generosity of his father-in- 
law. " I am a King," he said, " and by your goodness a 
knight, but I am a child without aid or knowledge. My 
father is dead, and my mother is gone back to her own 
country : be to me both father and mother, and guide my 
weakness with counsel and protection." Later Scottish 
chroniclers give Henry III. the credit of an honest re- 
sponse to this appeal. " Never did any of the English 
Kings in times past keep pledges to the Scots more 
honourably and steadfastly than this Henry, for he was 
looked upon by the Kings of Scotland, father and son, as 
their most faithful neighbour and adviser." The picture 
is perhaps a little overdrawn, to point the contrast with 
Edward I., but Henry proved a good friend to his son- 
in-law, even if he attempted to increase English authority 
in Scotland. The minority of Alexander III. witnessed 
the definite creation of an English party in Scotland. 
It was not an Anglo-Norman party, for, though its leaders 
were Anglo-Norman nobles, the leaders of the opposite 
party were also Anglo-Norman nobles, and there were 
Celts in both. The new English party desired to see 
Scotland in close alliance with England, and were willing 
to accept the authority of its Sovereign. While English 
sympathies are the distinctive characteristic of this party, 



it did not originate in an attempt to assert the English 
claims. We are to look for its origin simply in the feuds 
of the Scottish nobility. One group of nobles, which 
included Robert de Bruce, the head of the Bruce family, 
was opposed to another group, which included Walter 
Comyn, Earl of Menteith. Both the Bruces and the 
Comjnis were in the line of succession to the throne, and 
they had thus one good cause of quarrel. Henry III. 
supported Bruce 's party, the leader of which was Alan 
Durward, the Justiciar of Scotland, and Durward and 
his friends, for this sufficient reason, supported Henry III. 
The alliance continued for many years. The original dis- 
putes between the two factions were forgotten, and one 
of them became an English party, anti-national in sym- 
pathy. The narrative of their early feuds is intricate 
and of small importance. The Menteith party offended 
the young King and Queen, and Durward and his friends 
succeeded in seizing the persons of Alexander and Mar- 
garet. Henry came to their assistance, and made an 
arrangement at Kelso by which his allies were to be the 
Regents of Scotland. He had never asserted the feudal 
claim of guardianship during Alexander's minority, and 
he now described himself as " Principal Counsellor " to 
the King of Scotland. The triumph of the English party 
was short-lived, for Menteith and his friends, with the 
help of the Church (always national in its sympathies), 
soon came into power again, and any chance of an under- 
standing between them and Henry was prevented by 
their making an alliance with the Welsh, who were at 
war with England. Henry, despite his own difficulties at 
the time, made some efforts to recover his authority, but 
he gained little except a visit from his daughter and her 
husband, who longed to see again " the churches, cities, 
and castles, the rivers and meadows, the woods and fields 
of England, which are appraised most highly among the 



delights of all kingdoms." At Windsor, early in 1262, 
Queen Margaret gave birth to her eldest child, a daughter, 
afterwards the mother of the Maid of Norway. 

On his return from England, Alexander undertook the 
task which his dying father had left unfinished, and the 
annexation of the Hebrides is the most memorable event 
of his reign. An attempt to negotiate for their cession, 
made by Alexander in 1262, was interpreted by Haco of 
Norway as indicating an intention to recover them by 
force, and in 1263 his great fleet appeared off the island 
of Arran. The Scots could not meet him at sea, and 
Haco's intention was to invade Scotland if the menace 
of his great array should fail to bring Alexander to terms. 
It did fail to accomplish this end, but the invasion was 
in other wise than Haco had planned. " At God's com- 
mand, on the very day that both the Kings had appointed 
for battle, there arose at sea a very fierce storm, and a 
great part of the fleet dragged their anchors and were 
roughly cast on shore, whether they would or not. Then 
the King's army came against them, and cut down many, 
both nobles and serfs." This battle, fought at Largs in 
September, 1263, made the Western Islands subject, at 
all events in name, to the Scottish Crown, for Haco 
retired discomfited to the Orkneys, where he died in the 
following winter. Meanwhile Alexander extorted an un- 
willing submission from Haco's ally, the ruler of the Isle 
of Man, and sent a successful expedition into the Hebrides. 
In 1266, Eric of Norway ceded the islands (including Man) 
to Scotland for a money payment, and only the Orkneys 
remained Norwegian territory. 

Like his predecessors, Alexander III. had disputes 
with the Popes, whose extortions he succeeded in check- 
ing, and towards the close of his reign the old controversy 
about the English overlordship was revived. In 1278, 
Alexander took an oath of homage to his brother-in-law, 



Edward I., at Westminster. The chroniclers are strangely- 
silent about this oath, and such authorities as we possess 
contradict each other. A statement on the English side, 
which contains a suspicious error of date, asserts that 
Alexander gave an unqualified homage, and a contem- 
porary Scottish account tells that, when the King of 
Scots made his homage, " saving the right of his own 
crown," the Bishop of Norwich asserted the King of 
England's right to homage for the kingdom of Scotland, 
and was met by Alexander with the retort that to God 
alone was such homage due. Alexander's Queen had 
died three years before this meeting of the two Kings 
at Westminster, and the closing years of his life were 
clouded by a succession of calamities. His younger son, 
David, a boy of eight, died in 1281. His elder son, 
Alexander, whose birth on the propitious day which 
brought the news of the death of King Haco had been 
hailed as a happy omen, died in 1283, leaving no child. 
About the same time the King lost his only daughter, 
Margaret, who had married Eric of Norway, and become 
the mother of a baby girl, now the heiress of the Scottish 
crown. In October, 1285, Alexander, still in middle life, 
m^arried Yolande of Dreux, and the festivities of the 
marriage ceremony at Jedburgh mcluded the Pageant 
of the Dance of Death, an ill-chosen masque, whose un- 
familiarity increased its acceptance as a presage of coming 
evil. The fulfilment was not long delayed. One wild 
March day in 1286, when a fierce north wind was laden 
with showers of snow and rain, Alexander was holding a 
council at Edinburgh. He dined merrily on lampreys, a 
dish associated with the deaths of Kings. There was a 
general belief that the end of the world was near. " If 
this be the Judgment Day," said Alexander's host, " we 
shall rise with full beUies." When the feast had ended, 
the King expressed his determination to go to the Queen 



at Kinghorn, in Fife, and all efforts to dissuade him were 
in vain. When he came to Queensferry, the ferryman 
warned him of his danger, and Alexander asked if he 
feared to die with him. " It would be high honour to 
share the fate of your father's son," replied the man, and 
he carried the King safely across the Firth. At Inver- 
keithing the burgesses begged him to stay, but he rode 
on, " soon losing in the darkness all knowledge of the 
way ; only the horses picked out instinctively the hard 
road." Separated from his three attendants, the King rode 
on until his horse stumbled. He was thrown and killed, and 
his country entered upon the great crisis of her history. 

Later chroniclers record that Alexander III. was 
" righteous, godly, wise and kind, mild and merciful," 
and they consoled themselves for his sudden death with 
the reflection that he who lives well cannot die ill. He 
had certainly done good service to the realm. Trade 
and commerce made rapid progress, though, if we can 
trust a late authority, Alexander's views on political 
economy left something to be desired. " The King 
decreed that merchandise should not cross over the sea 
to any place beyond the kingdom, for so many ships were 
lost, and others were taken by enemies and pirates, that 
the kingdom was thereby much impoverished, and he 
ordered that no ship should pass out of the realm on pain 
of loss of goods." The foreigner was willing to take the 
risk, and " many ships laden with all manner of mer- 
chandise would come to the country in these days and 
barter all their merchandise, goods for goods." The 
chroniclers speak of Scottish skiU in handicrafts, and 
their stories of the gold and silver which foreign mer- 
chants brought are confirmed by the fact that coins of 
Alexander III. are very common at the present day, and 
fetch only a trifle in the market. Prosperity followed 
the peace which Alexander and his predecessors had 



given. " Justice reigned " in the time of Alexander, 
says the historian of Pluscarden, and though only frag- 
ments of thirteenth-century Scottish law have come down 
to us, it is clear enough that the Lowlands could boast of 
just and competent administration. The system, as we 
have already seen, was based upon the legislation of the 
Norman and Plantagenet Kings of England. The Scottish 
Kings had, from the reign of David L, a Great Council, 
consisting of tenants-in-chief of the Crown. They ap- 
pointed Justiciars ; they made progresses through the 
coimtry " to administer justice, to punish rebels, to 
reward the good, and, with the officers of each district, 
to remedy all defects." These local officers now included 
Vice-Comites, or Sheriffs, whose names and whose duties 
were alike borrowed from England. The materials of 
Scottish thirteenth-century law preserved in the Regiam 
Maiestatem are but a transcript of the work of Glanvill, 
the great lawyer of Henry II. 's reign, and in 1197 WiUiam 
the Lion made his subjects swear the oath for the con- 
servation of the peace on which Henry II. had founded 
his great Assize of Clarendon. From the time of Malcolm 
Canmore to the outbreak of the War of Independence, 
Scottish lawgivers knew but one exemplar and one 

The continuous progress of Anglicization is thus the 
essential fact of Scottish history for more than two hun- 
dred years. For by far the greater portion of that period 
the dynasty of Malcolm Canmore and Queen Margaret 
had to meet on the battle-field the opponents of Anglo- 
Norman influence. They had at last been successful in 
suppressing armed resistance, but their victory had pro- 
duced a new line of cleavage in the already divided king- 
dom of Scotland. Walter of Coventry, an Englishman 
of the reign of Edward I., remarks upon the difference 
between the Kings of Scotland and their people. " The 



Kings of Scotland in recent times," he says, " pride them- 
selves on being French [Norman] in race and in manner 
of life, in speech and in culture. They have reduced the 
Scots to utter slavery, and they admit none but French- 
men to their friendship and their service." The refusal 
of Alexander II. to bring Galloway directly under the 
Crown by depriving three Anglo-Norman Barons of the 
inheritance of their wives is an illustration of the strength 
of the alliance between the Scottish Kings and their 
foreign nobles. The fact that the men of Galloway asked 
for the protection of the Crown, and avenged the refusal 
of their petition by a series of rebellions, indicates the 
measure of their dislike to their foreign masters. Angli- 
cization had made little progress in Galloway, which still 
retained its native Gaelic speech. English was certainly 
the speech of Lothian, and Gaelic of the Western High- 
lands. That Gaelic was the speech of the shires of 
Stirling and Dumbarton for nearly three hundred years 
after the death of Alexander III. we know from the 
evidence of Sir Thomas Craig, yet English civilization 
had so far progressed by the end of the thirteenth century 
that the seal of the burgh of Stirling represents the bridge 
over the Forth as compassed on the one side by spearmen, 
with the legend, Hie armis hruti Scoti stant ; and on 
the other side by archers, over whom are the words, Hie 
cruce tuti. The crucifix in the centre would have been 
honoured by both, and the appeal to Holy Cross is but a 
rhetorical device. The real distinction is to be found in 
the arms. The men who are safe in the protection of the 
Cross defend themselves with bow and arrow, the weapon 
of England ; the uncivilized Scots with spears, the national 
weapon of Scotland. Stirling is very near the Lothians. 
Are we to infer that in the reign of Alexander III. the 
Scots who lived north of the Forth were still hruti, 
uncivilized ? Our narrative has shown that such an 



inference cannot be accepted without serious modifica- 
tion, and we have already spoken of the difficulty of 
estimating the effect of grants of land and other Anglo- 
Norman influences upon the racial complexion of the 
country. How much of Scotland, outside the Lothians, 
was English-speaking at the death of Alexander III. ? 
Gaelic was the tongue of Galloway and Carrick, of Stir- 
lingshire, Dumbartonshire, and Perthshire, and we know 
that in the beginning of the eighteenth century it was 
still the language of Perthshire parishes like Callander, 
Aberfoyle, and Port of Menteith, and of the Stirlingshire 
and Dumbartonshire parishes near Loch Lomond. Wit- 
nesses from Braemar required interpreters in Court at 
Edinburgh in the middle of the eighteenth century, and 
Gaelic is still spoken in portions of Aberdeenshire. In 
the parts of that county where it has entirely died out 
we have some evidence, in the forms of place-names, that 
their Gaelic meanings were understood until late in the 
Middle Ages. It is not until after the fifteenth century 
that Camquhyle (" the sloping wood "), becomes Camphill, 
and it is not until after the seventeenth that Badigaan 
(Bad a' ghobainn, " the clump or hamlet of the smith ") 
becomes Bandygown. A careful and systematic inquiry 
into the date of the extinction of the Gaelic tongue in the 
East of Scotland has yet to be undertaken, and it is 
because of the lack of such knowledge that we are startled 
to find such a stray item of information as is given by 
John Taylor, the " Water-poet," who travelled as far 
North as Braemar in the year 1618. "I did go," he says, 
" through a country called Glaneske. ... At night I 
came to a lodging in the Lard of Eggels [EdzelFs] land, 
where I lay at an Irish house, the folkes not being able 
to speake scarce any English." * Gaelic was probably a 

* Taylor's " Penniless Pilgrimage," in the folio edition of his works, 
1630, p. 134. 

KING JAMES II. (1437-1460). Page 117. 
From the painting in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. 



survival in Glenesk in the seventeenth century, for the 
English tongue had long been encouraged, not only by 
the Church and by commerce, but also by the Anglo- 
Norman nobility of the north-east. How strong was 
the influence of non -Celtic Barons in discouraging the 
use of the Gaelic tongue may be understood from an 
autobiographical fragment written by a Deeside minister 
who died in 1904. " The Gordons," he says, " were not 
of Celtic origin, though they had many Highland posses- 
sions, yet such was their influence with their Gaelic- 
speaking tenants that in the whole district on the right 
bank of the Dee, from Balmoral to Glenmuick, of which 
they were resident proprietors, the old language had com- 
pletely disappeared long before the beginning of the [nine- 
teenth] century : while on the opposite bank of the river, 
where the proprietors were either Celtic or non-resident, 
the Gaelic continued to be the household language of 
almost every family down to 1830 at least."* It is 
impossible to speak dogmatically, but the more the 
available evidence is investigated, the greater, we think, 
is the probability that Gaelic continued to be spoken in 
the East Country to the north of the Forth much longer 
than has been generally supposed. We have seen that 
the chroniclers of the Battle of the Standard speak of the 
inhabitants of this district as the Scots, distinguished alike 
from the men of Lothian, the Galwegians, and the High- 
landers and Islanders of the west. In the history of the 
century and a half which elapsed between the Battle of 

* "Deeside Tales," by John Grant Michie, edited by Francis C. 
Diack, p. 10. Mr. Diack's notes are a valuable contribution to the 
discussion of this subject. A tradition of Gaelic- speaking in Fife 
survived to the eighteenth century (Old Statistical Account, parish of 
Dron). A statement in " Burt's Letters " that Gaelic was still spoken 
in Fife in the second quarter of the eighteenth century is clearly a 
mis-understanding on Burt's part, but it may be connected with this 




the Standard and the War of Independence there is little 
or nothing to make us doubt that this description was 
still applicable at the end of the thirteenth century, 
though it is true that there were more Norman land- 
owners in the country, and more English and Flemish 
merchants in the towns. It is difficult to obtain definite 
information about the population of the towns, but the 
earliest list of the merchants of Aberdeen (1406) contains 
a large proportion of Gaelic names. 

The War of Independence, which we are about to nar- 
rate, has been described as the " resistance of the English 
of Scotland to England," but only the three Lothian 
counties can without hesitation be described as English. 
The real distinction, as it seems to us, is between the 
Scottish nobility and the Scottish people. All over Scot- 
land, except in the Western Highlands, the great men of 
the land were Anglo-Normans, or Celts who had adopted 
Anglo-Norman civilization. But there had been no racial 
dispossession of the people, and the narrative of the War 
of Independence is the story of how the people of Scot- 
land, deserted by the nobility, asserted their independence 
under the leadership of a simple country gentleman, and 
how, after his defeat, they rallied again round an Anglo- 
Norman noble whose deed of blood had severed him from 
his ancient loyalty and his natural allies. 



If Edward I. was the Lord Paramount of the kingdom of 
Scotland, it was both his right and his duty, on the death 
of Alexander III., to become the guardian of the young 
Queen. He made no such claim, and a Great Council met 
at Scone in April, 1286, and appointed six Custodians of 
the realm. Margaret had been acknowledged as the heir- 
presumptive of her grandfather at a Council held by 
Alexander himself in 1284, but the succession of an infant 
girl, the daughter of a foreign Sovereign, afforded an 
opportunity for the ambition of Robert Bruce, Earl of 
Annandale, who had been so near the throne before the 
birth of Alexander III. He was not included in the 
number of the guardians, but there were among them 
two members of the Comyn family — Alexander Comyn, 
Earl of Buchan, and John Comyn, lord of Badenach. 
In the autumn of 1286, Bruce and his supporters held a 
meeting at Turnberry, in Ayrshire, and their delibera- 
tions and their actions alike menaced the settlement 
which had been made a few months previously at Scone. 
The old feuds were thus revived, but Bruce could not 
now look for support to England, for Edward 1. had 
larger and wiser aims than the encouragement of such 
an intrigue. After a hundred years of peace, and a long 
series of marriage alliances, the Scots, remembering the 
services rendered by Henry III. as " Principal Councillor 




of the King of Scotland," welcomed the news that Eric 
of Norway wished to secure the help of Edward I. to 
establish his daughter's throne. An international con- 
ference at Salisbury in 1289 was attended by Norwegian, 
English, and Scottish representatives, and their pre- 
liminary discussion was a good omen for the success of 
the project on which Edward had set his heart. He had 
decided that the time had come for a peaceful union of 
the two kingdoms, and he proposed that his son Edward, 
then a boy of five, should marry the six-year-old Queen 
of Scots. The alliance was welcomed in Scotland. Eng- 
land was not yet " the auld enemy " ; there was no blood- 
feud between the peoples, and the Scots were glad to be 
saved from the peril of a disputed succession and a civil 
war. Protected by the power of the great Sovereign of 
England, the girl- Queen and her husband might rule in 
peace and prosperity, and to them and their descendants 
the two countries would owe one obedience. 

The proposals made at Salisbury received final sanction 
in the following year. In July, 1290, the " clergy, 
nobility, and the whole community " of Scotland, held a 
national council at Birgham, in Berwickshire. The 
Treaty of Birgham, while it justified his statesmanlike 
attempt to unite Scotland with England, gave Edward 
sufficient warning that the Scots were not prepared to 
accept anything less than the union under one Crown of 
two free and independent nations. The kingdoms were 
to remain separate organizations ; no Scotsman was to be 
summoned to do homage outside the bounds of Scotland ; 
no Parliament sitting in England was to transact Scottish 
business ; Scottish cases were to be tried by Scots law on 
Scottish soil. Should Margaret die, leaving no child, the 
Scottish Crown was to pass to the nearest heirs " wholly, 
freely, absolutely, and without any subjection." The 
general terms usual in these documents, saved such rights 



as belonged or ought to belong to the English Crown, but 
only thus was the question of the overlordship raised at 
Birgham. Scarcely had the treaty been signed, when 
Edward indicated how liberally he was prepared to inter- 
pret it. His representative, Antony Bek, Bishop of 
Durham, a member of the Church Militant, who was to 
visit Scotland in other circum^stances, demanded the sur- 
render of the Scottish castles and strongholds. The 
demand was repudiated, and Edward acquiesced, appar- 
ently with some grace. Meanwhile he had sent to Nor- 
way a large ship, provisioned with raisins and other sweet- 
meats dear to the childish heart, to bring to England his 
son's future bride. Eric declined to trust his daughter 
to an English vessel, but in September, 1290, she set sail 
from Bergen. A " sorrowful rumour " soon reached 
Scotland, and was reported to Edward by one of the 
few Scottish clergy who were to favour the English cause. 
The Maid of Norway had died on her voyage to Scotland, 
and the policy of a marriage alliance was at an end. 

The quarrel between the Bruces and the Comyns at 
once broke out afresh. There had been no alternative 
for Bruce but to accept the succession of the Maid when 
it was guaranteed by the English King, and he had taken 
part in the deliberations at Salisbury and at Birgham. 
Now he could appeal to Edward against the national 
party, and, asserting his right to the throne as the chosen 
heir of Alexander II., he claimed the protection of his 
overlord. Edward was ready to seize his opportunity, 
and, in characteristic fashion, he sent first of all for 
information about the pretensions to the overlordship. 
Then he summoned the Scottish magnates to Norham. 
When they assembled, on May 10, 1291, he announced 
his intention of maintaining his just right to be Lord 
Paramount of Scotland. On June 3, at a meeting on 
the Scottish side of the Tweed, opposite Norham, the 



Anglo-Norman nobility of Scotland, faced by Edward's 
Anglo-Norman army, admitted the claim. The free- 
holders, or " community of the realm," made some protest 
or comment, which Edward regarded as not pertinent to 
the subject, and which no chronicler has recorded. The 
Lord Paramount then announced that he would himself 
decide between the rivals to the throne of the vassal 
kingdom, and the Scottish strongholds were delivered 
into his hands. 

Edward's decision was delayed till November, 1292. 
There were in all thirteen competitors for the Crown. 
One of them was descended from an illegitimate daughter 
of Alexander II., and the numerous natural children of 
William the Lion provided five of the others. Five 
claimed by virtue of legitimate descent from William's 
brother, David, Earl of Huntingdon, or from one of his 
sisters. Of the remaining two, one was Eric of Norway, 
who asserted a right from his dead wife ; and the other, 
John Comyn, the lord of Badenoch, could point to no 
royal progenitor nearer than Donald Bane, the brother 
of Malcolm Canmore. The descendants of David of 
Huntingdon were clearly nearest to the succession. Of 
these, John Balliol was the grandson of David's eldest 
daughter, Robert Bruce was the son of his second 
daughter, and John Hastynges was the grandson of his 
third daughter. The choice lay between Balliol and 
Bruce, and it depended upon a point frequently raised in 
such discussions. Balliol was descended from David's 
elder daughter, but he was a degree farther away from 
David himself. Neither in descent nor in influence could 
anyone compete with these two, for Bruce 's party was 
powerful, and had long been attached to the English 
interest, and Balliol was supported by the party of the 
Comyns, for the Black Comyn (the claimant) had married 
his sister. Edward, after listening to many pleadings, 



gave his decision in conformity with the later theory of 
strict primogeniture. John Balliol was to be King of 
Scotland. The English King was wise as well as fair, 
for though Bruce had always been pro-English, Balliol 
was, in English opinion, " a simple creature," and sim- 
plicity was a useful quality in a vassal King. 

King John's accession was not welcomed by his people, 
but he was duly crowned, did due homage, and agreed to 
cancel the Treaty of Birgham. For three and a half 
unhappy years John Balliol was the nominal ruler of 
Scotland. The King of England was the vassal of the 
Emperor and of the Pope for his English Crown, and for 
his French possessions he was the vassal of the King of 
France. Long experience of the methods by which the 
obligations owed by himself to others might be ignored 
had not taught him the best means of securing the ob- 
servance of the obligations owed by others to himself. 
Going far beyond the admitted rights of a Lord Para- 
mount, and demanding an obedience much more im- 
plicit than William the Lion had rendered to Henry II., 
he made his vassal's position impossible in Scotland. 
Balliol was spared no humiliation. He must answer in 
an English court an action brought against him by the 
Gascon wine-merchant of Alexander III. ; he must plead 
before Edward in Scottish cases. In 1294 he was sum- 
moned to London to receive instructions for the raising 
of money to enable Edward to resist his own liege lord, 
Philip IV. of France. Simple as Balliol was, the lesson 
was not lost upon him, and he returned to Scotland to 
negotiate a Franco-Scottish alliance. His homage, he 
said, had been extorted by violence, and he renounced it, 
as Edward had just renounced his own homage to Philip. 
Almost his first act was to revenge himself on his old 
enemies, the Bruces. Robert Bruce had just died, and 
Balliol drove out his son, Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, 



the father of the future King. The lands of the Bruce 
were given to John Comyn, who had succeeded his father 
as Earl of Buchan.* Open hostilities began in the winter 
of 1295-96. 

Balliol had apparently chosen a propitious moment to 
rebel, for Edward was at war with France, he had a 
Welsh rebellion to suppress, and his extortionate taxa- 
tion had produced unusually vehement protests in Eng- 
land. But no moment was really propitious for the 
enemies of Edward Plantagenet. Early in 1296 the 
English King marched to Scotland, and found the gates 
of Berwick-on-Tweed closed against him. The murder 
of some English merchants had given Edward a grievance 
against the town, and the citizens further irritated him 
by insults, the words of which have been handed down 
by tradition ! 

" Waune thou havest Berwick, pike thee, 
Waune thou havest geten, dike thee," 

they sang in the confidence of ignorance. Their town 
fell at the first onslaught, and Edward perpetrated a 
massacre which was the prelude to a fierce and cruel war- 
fare. At Dunbar he defeated a Scottish army, and on 
July 7, 1296, at Stracathro, near Brechin, John Balliol 
abdicated his throne and surrendered his vassal kingship 
into the hands of the Lord Paramount. After an English 
imprisonment, he was allowed to end his days on his 
French estates of Bailleul. Scotland was a conquered 
country, and Edward made a triumphal progress as far 

* It is necessary to distinguish two branches of the Comyns. The 
Regents of 1286 included Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, the head 
of the family, and John Comyn, lord of Badenach, the competitor, 
generally known as the Black Comyn. Alexander Comyn, Earl of 
Buchan, died in 1289, and was succeeded by his son, John Com.yn. 
The Black Comyn died about 1300, and was succeeded by his son, also 
John Comyn, generally known as the Red. The Red Comyn was 
Balliol's nephew, and the rival of Robert Bruce, the future King. 



north as Elgin. As overlord he had already taken pos- 
session of a large number of the records of the kingdom 
of Scotland, and in 1296 he seized others and sent the 
whole collection to London, where a few of them survive 
to this day. From Scone he carried off the Coronation 
Stone on which Alexander III. had been crowned as the 
representative of the Celtic Kings. The Scottish nobles 
were willing to submit to him. The Bruces, in accordance 
with their family tradition, had rallied to the English 
cause from the moment of Balliol's rebellion, and before 
Edward left Scotland about two thousand Scottish land- 
owners signed the Ragman Roll, the shameful proof of 
submission. The country was placed under a military 
occupation, and Edward, never a good judge of men, 
appointed a Governor (John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey) 
and a Treasurer (Hugh de Cressingham), who were singu- 
larly unfitted for their task. 

That task was no easy one. The submission of the 
Anglo-Norman baronage did not carry with it the obedi- 
ence of the Scottish people. A vassal King, a body of 
foreign or denationalized nobles, had proved an easy 
conquest : but Edward had now to meet a nation in 
arms. The events of the year 1297 made the contem- 
porary English chroniclers realize what Edward had for- 
gotten — the difference between the Scottish Barons and 
the Scottish people. They all ascribe the revolt to the 
commons of Scotland as distinguished from the nobles, 
and one of them, Walter of Hemingburgh,* says that, 
though the magnates themselves were in Edward's army 
(not always willingly), their men were with his enemy. 
The leader of the rising was a simple knight. Sir William 
Wallace, of Elderslie, a younger son of a Renfrewshire 
gentleman whose ancestor had accompanied the Fitz- 
Alans to Scotland. He first attracted notice in the 
* Walter of Hemingburgh, or Hemingford, fl, 1300. 



autumn of 1296. Later generations loved to tell a 
romantic story of a personal injury done to Wallace by 
an English official, and the cruelty of the garrisons renders 
it not improbable that in some such way the noblest of 
Scottish patriots received the call to his great mission. 
Whether or not he had a murdered wife to avenge, 
Wallace, by the early summer of 1297, was the recog- 
nized leader of the army of the commons of Scotland, 
and so hearty was the response to his summons to fight 
for the national freedom that some of the nobility, in- 
cluding the young Kobert Bruce, temporarily deserted 
the English cause. In July they returned to their 
allegiance to Edward, and Wallace, undaunted, led his 
army from Ettrick Eorest to attempt to recover the 
Castle of Dundee. Surrey and Cressingham followed in 
pursuit, and Wallace turned back to meet them on the 
great battle-ground of Scotland. His army included 
men from the Lothians, Celts from Galloway, Highlanders 
from. Moray and Badenach, and Scots from the districts 
north of the Forth. On September 11, 1297, Wallace 
was posted on the Abbey Craig near Stirling, looking 
down upon a small bridge with which the monks of Cam- 
buskenneth had spanned the Forth. The English were 
drawn up on the other side of the river, and they com- 
mitted the grave blunder of attempting to cross in the 
face of the enemy. Wallace permitted the English van 
to make its way over the narrow bridge, and then dashed 
his spearmen upon them. The enemy failed to keep 
command of the bridge, and were soon driven into help- 
less confusion. Surrey, who was with the rearguard, 
found it impossible to render assistance to his van, and 
fled to Berwick. Cressingham, who had crossed the fatal 
bridge, was killed in the fight. 

Wallace was now the ruler of Scotland, and for a year 
he governed in the name of John Balliol. The cruelties 



of the sack of Berwick, by which Edward began the war, 
were avenged by an invasion of England, in which Wallace 
penetrated as far south as Hexham, ravaging in the 
manner of Malcolm Canmore and the sainted David. 
Meanwhile Edward made peace with the English Barons 
and a truce with France, and Wallace failed to capture 
Roxburgh and to prevent the English from recovering 
Berwick. In the summer of 1298, Edward, accompanied 
by the warlike Bishop of Durham, who " had such abund- 
ance of retinue that in his column there were thirty-two 
banners and a trio of Earls," led a large force into Scot- 
land. Food was scarce, but Edward pressed on to 
Falkirk, where the Guardian of Scotland had assembled 
his army. " I have brought you to the ring, dance as 
you may," he said. The Scots were drawn up in the 
recognized formation of the day. The spearmen were in 
four great schiltrons or circles ; " the front ranks knelt 
with their spear-butts fixed in the earth, the rear ranks 
levelled their lances over their comrades' heads ; the 
fchick-set grove of twelve-foot spears was far too dense for 
cavalry to penetrate." * Eight and left of the schiltrons, 
and in the intervals between them, were bodies of archers, 
and the Scottish cavalry was in the rear. Edward began 
the battle by sending his horse to attempt to break up 
the schiltrons. They made no impression on the dense 
ranks of spearmen, but they destroyed the Scottish 
archers. Wallace's cavalry fled at the first approach of 
the English. The tradition that their flight was due 
rather to treachery than to terror is both persistent and 
probable, for the Anglo-Norman nobility were not likely 
to prove loyal followers of a simple gentleman. The 
archers, helpless against the English cavalry, died bravely 
for Scotland, and Edward deployed his horse and sent 
forward the English bowmen. There was no reply to 
* Professor Oman's Art of War, p. 567. 



their volleys, nor any cavalry to scatter them, and the 
grey-goose shafts fell steadily and remorselessly on the 
Scots. When their deadly work was done, Edward 
again sent the chivalry of England upon the broken ranks 
of the spearmen, and the day was his (July 22, 1298). 

Wallace, a fugitive from the lost battle, resigned his 
office of Guardian, and made his way to France. The 
example he had set inspired even the nobility, and new 
Regents took his place. Among them were Robert 
Bruce, the younger, and the Red Comyn. It is probable 
that Bruce had remained more or less faithful to the 
English until Falkirk, and his revolt after the victory 
requires some explanation. It is to be found partly in 
the disappearance of Wallace, which left open a place for 
a more selfish ambition, and partly in the difficulties 
which prevented Edward I. from following up his success 
and completing his conquest. The Scots had taken care 
that there should be no supply of food for him in Scotland, 
and when he re-entered England he found his Barons 
determined to wring from him an honest confirmation of 
the Charters of Liberties. The Castle of Stirling sur- 
rendered to the Scots in 1299, and the national cause 
seemed to have survived the great disaster. Edward 
invaded Scotland in 1300, but made no effort to reduce 
the country or to recover Stirling. At Sweetheart Abbey, 
on his homeward journey, he was met by the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, an unwelcome visitor, for he brought with 
him a letter from Boniface VIII. forbidding the English 
King to continue the conquest of Scotland, a kingdom 
which had always appertained to Holy Mother Church. 
Boniface had been coached in the Scottish case, and he 
reminded Edward of some awkward facts. It could not 
have escaped the royal memory, said the Pope, that when 
Edward's little niece, Margaret, succeeded to the Scottish 
throne, not the Sovereign of England, but the magnates 



of Scotland, filled the office of Guardian, or that, when 
the Pope granted a dispensation for the marriage of 
Margaret and Prince Edward, it was on the understand- 
ing that Scotland was to remain a free and independent 
kingdom. The submission of the Scottish nobles had 
been extorted by force ; if Edward could really prove 
the English supremacy, let him produce his evidence at 
Rome. The Pope did more harm than good to Scotland 
by his intervention, for the English national spirit was 
roused, and Edward held a sympathetic Parliament at 
Lincoln, and sent a long letter to Boniface on the rela- 
tions between England and Scotland. To the conven- 
tional English case, with the omission of the agreement 
between Richard I. and William the Lion, he added the 
statement that in Margaret's minority the Scots treated 
him as their overlord, an assertion for which there is even 
less authority than for the rest of an interesting narra- 
tive. Ancient tradition and more original fiction were, 
of course, alike irrelevant ; the point of the letter was 
that Edward and his people intended to reduce Scotland 
to subjection. 

Two years elapsed before the English made any real 
effort to carry out their threats. In the intervals of 
short truces, expeditions were sent to ravage Scotland in 
1301 and 1302. In February, 1303, an English army was 
defeated at Rosslyn by the Red Comyn, and Edward 
decided upon another invasion. He was now at peace 
with his Barons and with France, and the Pope had 
abandoned his attempt at intervention. In the summer 
of 1303 he made an unopposed march to Elgin, wintered 
in Scotland, and in July, 1304, captured Stirling Castle. 

The surrender of Stirling Castle completed Edward's 
short-lived conquest. The Scottish nobility once more 
submitted to him, and the people were, for the time, 
helpless. Bruce had long ago been re-converted to the 



English cause. It is doubtful if his position as a Regent 
continued beyond one of the periods of truce. A con- 
temporary authority asserts,, possibly erroneously, that 
he attended Edward's Lincoln Parliament ; and he cer- 
tainly was appointed Sheriff of Lanarkshire in 1302. 
The victor of Rosslyn. the Red Comyn, and his co-regents 
came to terms with the English early in 1304. and agreed 
to accept a sentence of temporary banishment. Wallace, 
who had returned to Scotland, alone stood out after the 
fall of Stirling, and for Wallace there could be no sub- 
mission. Edward ordered Com^Ti and others of Wallace's 
old allies to seek for him, and promised to shorten their 
exile if they betrayed him. In 1305 the English King 
heard with satisfaction that his great enemy was captured 
— betrayed, according to a not improbable tradition, by Sir 
John Menteith. Wallace was taken to London, where 
he endured the indignity of a mock trial and suffered a 
traitor's doom. The Englishmen who witnessed his 
death thought of him as " an outcast from pity, a robber, 
and a murderer, a man more cruel than the cruelty of 
Herod, and more insane than the fury of Xero," and 
to his mercilessness they ascribed his merciless end. 
Wallace, like Edward himself, had recognized no limits 
to the horrors of warfare, but his crime did not lie in the 
ferocious deeds perpetrated by or attributed to him. 
Xor, though he died the death of a traitor, with aU its 
horrible and nameless torture, was treachery his offence. 
To Edward, King of England, he could be, as he himself 
said, no traitor, for he had never been within his allegi- 
ance, and in this very absence of treachery lay the front 
of his offending. His companions, noble and episcopal, 
had aU sworn obedience to the conqueror, and were all 
forsworn in turn. For them there was the possibility of 
a fresh recantation and a new pardon ; for him honour 
and a shameful death alone remained. " In the sight of 



the unwise he seemed to die, but his name liveth for ever- 
more," the name of the greatest and the most faithful of 
his country's heroes. 

Among the courtiers of Edward who may have wit- 
nessed the trial and death of Wallace was Kobert Bruce, 
now Lord of Annandale and Earl of Carrick. The 
dominions of his grandfather, the competitor of 1290, had 
been enlarged by his father's romantic marriage with the 
heiress of the earldom of Carrick. His father, who died 
in 1304, had been living on his English estates for the 
last few years of his life, and the future King had been 
master of his Scottish heritage since the Battle of Falkirk. 
Edward regarded him as one of his best allies ; but even 
while he was helping the English to take Stirling in 
1304, he was conspiring against his trustful master. 
Early in 1305 he was present at Edward's Parliament in 
London, which made preliminary arrangements for the 
administration of Scotland, and he was probably among 
the Barons who, in the following September, when 
Wallace's head was resting on London Bridge, devised a 
wise and statesmanlike scheme for the government of 
Edward's new conquest — a scheme which, in other circum- 
stances, might well have brought fresh lustre to the name 
of the English Justinian. Edward had done with vassal 
Kings, and he appointed his own nephew, John of 
Brittany, as the Viceroy of Scotland. The existing laws 
were, as far as possible, respected, and the existing 
divisions of the country were recognized by the issue of 
separate judicial commissions for Lothian, for Galloway 
and the south-west, for the partially Anglicized Scots 
north of the Forth, and for the Western Highlands. 
Scotland was to have a native Parliament, and, for the 
most part, native Sheriffs, and Edward's instinct for 
efficient administrative procedure is traceable throughout 
the new constitution. But an English chronicler records 



that the result of a few months' experience of English 
administration was to convince the Scots that death was 
better than to be judged by the laws of England. 

Scottish prejudices against the methods of justice of 
their English governors — and Walter of Hemingburgh 
tells us that they included burning and tearing to pieces 
by horses — were to prove of great value to Robert Bruce, 
who was now on the threshold of his heroic career. With- 
out personal wrongs to avenge, and having afforded no 
indication of deep and earnest patriotism, Bruce had 
never ceased to cherish the ambition of realizing the 
destiny which his grandfather had struggled to achieve. 
On February 10, 1306, he met the Ked Comyn in the 
church of the Minorite Friars at Dumfries. A meeting of 
Robert Bruce and John Comyn at this date would have 
been sufficiently remarkable even if there had been no 
tragedy to record. Comyn was regarded as having in- 
herited, through his mother, the Balliol claim, and his 
attachment to the national cause which he had led to 
victory at Rosslyn rendered him worthy to inspire a new 
struggle for freedom. Of the circumstances which led 
to the interview we know nothing, for the conflicting 
accounts which have come down to us are all coloured by 
the prejudices of their writers. It is probable that Bruce 
and Comyn talked at Dumfries about the possibility of or- 
ganizing resistance, and that they failed to reconcile their 
rival claims upon a royal state which had yet to be created. 
Evil passions are easily aroused by so personal an issue, 
and both were men of violent temper ; during the short 
time of their co-regency they had once come to blows in 
the Great Council. Bruce inflicted a severe wound upon 
his rival, and left the church with the horror of a sacri- 
legious murder upon his conscience. His friends were 
less sensitive, and the tradition of their intervention is 
probably well founded. " I doubt I have slain the Red 

KING JAMES III. (1460-1488). Page 122. 
From the painting in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. 



Comyn," Bruce is reported to have said when he came 
out. "Doubt?" replied Sir Roger Fitzpatrick. "I'll 
mak siccar;" and Comyn was surely dead. The great 
future which lay before his assailant has been allowed 
unduly to depreciate the honourable past of the dead 
man. The Red Comyn had fought nobly and persistently 
for Scotland's right, and, even though, having done all 
that a man might, he endured not to the end, his courage 
and devotion do somewhat to redeem his mother's name 
of BaUiol. 

His enemy was left in parlous case. The absence of 
any preparations for a rising affords a strong presumption 
that the crime was unpremeditated. The murder of one 
claimant to the Scottish throne by the only other possible 
candidate must necessarily draw down the vengeance of 
the English King, with whom for two years Comyn had 
kept faith. To murder, Bruce had added the unforgiv- 
able crime of sacrilege, and from Rome there could come 
to him nothing but the " great and terrible cursing." 
The powerful family of the Comyns had a blood-feud to 
add to an hereditary enmity, and with the Comjms were 
united the friends of the Balliols. As an Anglo-Norman 
Baron, whose name had for - more than half a century 
been associated with English influence in Scotland, and 
whose own past was stained by repeated defections from 
the Scottish cause, Bruce had to appeal for the support 
of the commons. It is perhaps the best proof of the 
force of Scottish nationality that clergy and people alike 
rallied round the person of the Baron who, of all the 
owners of wide Scottish lands, had seemed the least likely 
to be the hero of a War of Independence. The clergy 
had all along helped to inspire the national cause. The 
English Chronicle of Lanercost speaks of the rising under 
Wallace as an illustration of the saying that evil priests 
are a people's ruin, and ascribes to thirteenth-century 




Scottish sermons an influence which we are accustomed 
to attribute to the preachers of the sixteenth. After the 
lapse of some months, a Papal Bull of Excommunication 
was issued against Bruce, but long before then three 
Scottish Bishops had helped to crown him, and though 
the Bishop of St. Andrews and some others of the prelates 
continued the devious course of treachery which they 
had followed hitherto, the loyalty of the clergy never 
wavered. On March 27, 1306, six weeks after the death 
of Comyn, Robert I. was crowned at Scone. The ancient 
crown and the Stone of Fate were 500 miles away, 
and the chief of the Clan Macduff did not come to 
perform his hereditary office of enthroning the King. 
But his sister, whose husband, the Earl of Buchan, was 
a Comyn and one of Edward's staunchest supporters, 
gave to the coronation of the new Sovereign the 
traditional dignity which still impressed the imagina- 
tion of the Scots of the country north of the Forth. 
A Macduff had placed a circlet of gold on the royal 
head, and King Eobert could claim that he was duly 

The ceremony at Scone had been prematurely rendered 
necessary by the slaughter of the Comyn, and Bruce was 
not ready for the grave responsibility he had undertaken. 
But with the blessing of the often -perjured Bishop of 
St. Andrews, the slayer of the Red Comyn received the 
spirit of kingship. By courage and faithfulness he re- 
deemed the years that the locusts had eaten ; by wisdom 
and strength he proved himself worthy of the love and 
loyalty which had come to him unearned ; he gave his 
people the skill that saved them from thraldom, and he 
showed them the wise and generous statesmanship which 
was fitted to guide them in the paths of peace. But 
peace was as yet afar off, and by a year of agony the 
Bruce atoned for the sin which had compelled him to 



make war while the cost was yet uncounted. On June 19 

his army was destroyed at Methven by the Earl of 
Pembroke. The English General had agreed to fight next 
day, but he at once availed himself of the advantage of 
a treacherous surprise, and Bruce, in the contemptuous 
words of Walter of Hemingburgh, proved " too trustful." 
In August he suffered a second defeat at the hands of 
Alexander of Lorn, a kinsman of the Comyn. Kild- 
rummie Castle, in Aberdeenshire, which his brother, Nigel 
Bruce, was holding for the King, fell in September, and 
its commander was put to death. His Queen had been 
sent for safety to the sanctuary of St. Duthac at Tain, 
but with his daughter Marjory, the future mother of the 
first Stewart King, she was given up by the Earl of Ross. 
The two royal ladies and one of Bruce's sisters were im- 
prisoned in England until after the Battle of Bannock- 
bum. Another sister fell into the hands of the English, 
as did also the Countess of Buchan who had performed 
the ceremony at Scone. For them Edward decreed a 
less pleasant restraint than the Queen's enforced rosi- 
dence in an English manor-house. They were confined in 
the Castles of Berwick and Roxburgh in rooms which 
are described as " kages," and which were constructed 
partially of some kind of lattice-work. It was believed 
in Scotland that they were placed in iron cages which 
were hung on the walls of the castles. The fate of Nigel 
Bruce was shared by large numbers of the new King's 
followers, clerk and lay, noble and simple. The clemency 
which Edward had hitherto shown to prisoners was now 
abandoned. It had not proved a successful policy, but 
no policy had any chance of success while Scotland was 
still determined to be free. 

During the winter of 1306-07, Bruce himself was a 
hunted fugitive. This is the period of the opening cantos 
of the Lord of the Isles and of the romantic tales of 



the early books of Barbour's* Britce. Along with his 
friend, Sir James of Douglas, he wandered through Athol 
and Argyll, and was at last driven to winter in the Island 
of Rachrin, off the coast of Antrim. Douglas was the 
son of Sir William Douglas, who had held Berwick against 
Edward I., and as the Good Douglas " he is second only 
to Bruce himself in the memories of the great struggle. 
By the English he was known as the " Black Douglas," 
from his dark complexion, and in the coming years 
English mothers were to sing of him to their babes : 

" Hush ye, hush ye, do not fret ye, 
The Black Douglas shall not get ye." 

Early in 1307 Bruce crossed from Rachrin to Arran, 
and in February he landed in his mother's land of Carrick. 
The beacon which was to be the signal that the propitious 
moment had come blazed forth from the neighbourhood 
of his own castle of Turnberry, but no friend of the Bruce 
had lit it : 

" Now ask you whence that wondrous light. 
Whose fairy glow beguiled their sight ? — 
It ne'er was known — yet gray-haired eld 
A superstitious credence held, 
That never did a mortal hand 
"Wake its broad glare on Carrick strand." 

The moment was not propitious, for Turnberry was in 
the hands of the enemy, and Bruce was still a wanderer, 
pursued by Edward's emissaries : bloodhounds and paid 
assassins. Two of his brothers were captured, and their 
heads placed on the walls of Carlisle. The Douglas won 
a small victor}' and recovered his own castle, an exploit 
the ferocity of which was long remembered as the " Douglas 
Larder." He did not hold the castle, for, as he said, it 
was " better to hear the lark sing than the mouse squeak," 

* John Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, born about 1316, died 



and his work had to be done in the open. On May 10, 
Bruce defeated his old enemy, Pembroke, at Loudon 
Hill, in Ayrshire, and the battle was the turning-point of 
the war. Edward had been in the North of England 
since the preceding summer, and his English levies had 
assembled at Carlisle. On July 3 he led his army towards 
the Scottish border ; on the 6th he died suddenly at 
Burgh-on-Sands, about seven miles from Carlisle. " The 
old King," says a recent English historian, " had failed 
in the great purpose of his life." If Edward Plantagenet 
died with the sense of failure upon him, the woes of Scot- 
land were avenged. 

His death deprived the English party in Scotland of 
the strength and the purpose which were necessary for 
the subjugation of the country. Edward II. led the army 
into Ayrshire, and then carried his father's bones to 
Westminster. King Robert, in the spring of 1307, was 
only a guerilla leader ; within two years he had estab- 
lished his power in the land. His Scottish foes included 
the ancient enemies of his house, and those whom he had 
alienated by the murder of Comyn. Among the latter 
were the Highlanders of Argyll, some of the Islesmen, 
the men of Badenach, and the clans of Galloway. The 
Highlanders were not, as a body, opposed to the Bruce ; 
Sir Nigel Campbell had been his friend throughout, and 
Angus Og, of Isla, had supported him through the winter 
of 1306-07. After the departure of the English army, 
the King's first task was to subdue the hereditary 
dominions of the Comyns. His campaign in Aberdeen- 
shire was successful, for at Slains, and again at Inverurie, 
he defeated the Earl of Buchan, the husband of the lady 
who had crowned him. The district was wasted and 
burned, and Barbour says that men remembered for fifty 
years the " hership [harrying] of Buchan " ; he must 
have known personally many of the sufferers. Except 



for the Comyns, the English cause in the North was weak. 
Later chroniclers tell that, after taking Aberdeen and 
Forfar, the Bruce received the submission of ]Moray and 
the surrender of the Castle of Inverness, and describe how 
the Earl of Ross made his peace with the King. Whether 
their stor}' is true or false, Bruce had little or no work to 
do in these districts. His brother, Edward Bruce, sub- 
dued Galloway, and Tweeddale was recovered for the 
national cause. In the end of 1308 or the beginning of 
1309, Bruce and Douglas defeated the Macdonalds of 
Lorn, and the Castle of DunstafFnage was captured in the 
summer. The friends of the murdered ComjTi had by 
this time done their worst. 

A record of a Parliament held at St. xAndrews in 1309 
to acknowledge the King's title is of doubtful authen- 
ticity, but, with or without such recognition, almost the 
whole of the North of Scotland was in fact under the 
rule of Robert Bruce. In February, 1310, the clergy 
made at Dundee a solemn declaration of fealty to their 
excommunicated monarch. Enghsh garrisons still held 
the great castles of the south, and the story of their 
gradual recovery is the most stirring tale of Scottish 
childhood : How the farmer Binning, with his cartloads 
of hay, took the Castle of Linlithgow ; how the Black 
Douglas and his men crept like a herd of cattle to the 
waUs of Roxburgh and surprised the garrison ; and how 
Randolph, the King's nephew, penitent and forgiven for 
a temporary defection, climbed the castle rock at Edin- 
burgh with thirty followers and seized the castle. Lin- 
Hthgow was gained in 1311, Bruce himself took Perth 
in January, 1313, Roxburgh feU in February, and Edin- 
burgh in March. Edward II. had not been quite idle, 
but his best effort was a futile invasion in 1310, in return 
for which Bruce ravaged the English borders next year 
and the year after. In 1312 he nearly captured Berwick, 



and in 1313 he restored the Isle of Man to the Scottish 

Stirling was still in English hands, and at Midsummer, 

1313, Edward Bruce made a chivalrous bargain with the 
EngHsh Governor. If the castle was not relieved within 
a year, it was to be given up by the garrison. The 
agreement ran counter to the whole policy of King Robert, 
who had acted on the principle of demolishing castles, 
lest their occupation should involve him in a pitched 
battle, and whose practice was to waste the country 
before an English invader, and to refuse him the oppor- 
tunity of employing his superior numbers in a great 
conflict. In the geography of the country lay one of the 
great hopes of Scottish independence ; the surprise of 
strongholds, isolated skirmishes, and attacks on the rear- 
guard of a hostile army, were the methods of warfare 
which had established the power of the Bruce. To risk 
everything on the chances of one great battle was to 
throw away the advantage afforded by the geographical 

To convince the Scots of their presumption, Edward II. 
led a large army into Scotland in the early summer of 

1314. The arrogance with which the English chroniclers 
speak of the military powers of the Scots up to this date 
was shared by their King, and he brought with him a 
poet to celebrate his victory. The Bruce fully realized 
the gravity of the situation, and he " trysted " his men 
to meet a little south of Stirling, on the verge of the 
Torwood Forest, so that, if success seemed impossible of 
realization, he might retreat and decline the unequal 
contest. As the English approached, he took up a 
position in the New Park or Forest, which commanded 
both the ways by which they might attempt to relieve 
the Castle of Stirling. The main body of the Scots held 
the road through the Park, and Randolph, who had just 



been created Earl of Moray, guarded the level tract 
between the Park and the River Forth. On the after- 
noon of a warm summer day (Sunday, June 23) the 
English came within sight, and Edward pitched his camp 
at Charter's Hall. Between him and the Scots ran the 
Bannockburn, which covered the Scottish left and front ; 
the right was protected by two morasses, the Milton Bog 
and Halbert Bog, and by the Park. The way to the 


There is very little evidence for the position of the armies. 

castle had, according to the most persistent tradition 
about the battle, been prepared for the advance of the 
English cavalry by a series of pitfalls and by calthrops to 
maim the horses' feet. A body of English knights passed 
unchallenged b}' Randolph's post, and drew from King 
Robert the exclamation that " a rose of his chaplete was 
fallyn." Stung by the taunt, Randolph offered battle. 



and the English turned back to meet him. It was a 
skirmish of infantry against cavahy, and Randolph 
warned his men to have their spears in readines s . 

" And bak to bak set all your rout 
And all the speris poyntis out." 

As the Scottish host watched the combat, the Douglas, 
" doughty of heart," became alarmed for Randolph's 
safety, and with great difficulty obtained the King's per- 
mission to go to his rescue. As he advanced, he perceived 
the EngHsh wavering, and he halted his men. It were 
sin, he said, to lessen Randolph's glory ; he had achieved 
the impossible : let him have all that he had won ; and 
Randolph pressed the foe so hard that they " durst abide 
ne mair." 

While Randolph was engaging the knights, the most 
romantic incident of the conflict took place. The Earl of 
Gloucester, with the vanguard of the English army, moved 
up to where King Robert was with the main body of the 
Scots. When the King saw them approaching, he began 
to prepare for battle, and he rode down the line on a small 
palfrey, battle-axe in hand. One of Gloucester's party, 

" Sir Henry the Boune, the worthy 
That was a wight knight and a hardy," 

rode out in front of his comrades on his great war-horse 
and made for the King, whom he recognized by the circlet 
of gold on his headpiece. Bruce eluded the shock : 

" Sir Henry missed the noble king, 
And he, that in his stirrups stood, 
With the axe that was hard and good," 

clove De Bohun's head in twain. The Scots, inspired 
by this great " first stroke of the fight," attacked, and the 
enemy retreated. His comrades reproved the King for 
so rash an adventure ; Bruce made no answer, but gazed 
at his broken battle-axe. 



When Randolph rejoined him with his victorious 
troops, Bruce held a council of war, and they determined 
to fight next day " for wife and child and freedom." 

"We have the right, 
And for the right aye God will fight," 

said the King. Morning broke on a fair June day, and 
the Scottish host heard Mass and moved out to battle. 
The front line was composed of three circles of spearmen 
under Randolph, Edward Bruce, and the Black Douglas. 
The men of Carrick, with the Highlanders and Islesmen, 
under the faithful Angus Og, formed the reserve, of which 
the King himself took charge. Sir Robert Keith, the 
Marischal of Scotland, commanded the small body of 
cavahy. "Will yon Scots fight?" asked the King of 
England as he saw them advance. Presently they knelt 
down. " They ask mercy !" he exclaimed triumphantly. 
" They ask mercy," one of his followers replied, " but not 
of you. These men will win or die." "Be it so," said 
Edward, and he gave the signal for the fight. The 
English had crossed the Bannockburn, and they were now 
hemmed in by stream and marsh. Gloucester and his 
vanguard spurred their horses and rushed upon the 
Scottish division commanded by Edward Bruce. Horse 
and rider fell before the steady wall of spears, and 
frightened horses rushed back riderless, bringing con- 
fusion and terror with them. Randolph moved forward 
and met another body of the English cavalry coming 
proudly on ; the front ranks of the enemy were soon 
borne to earth, and the Scots gradually penetrated the 
English line, until they seemed lost in the foemen's ranks, 
" as they were plunged in the sea." 

Douglas, with the stripling Walter the Steward, moved 
on to the help of Randolph, and the battle raged 
furiously. Spears clashed with armour ; knights fell ; 


there was no sound of human voice save the groans of 
the dying : 

" They fought each one so eagerly 
That they made neither noise nor cry." 

The " hideous shower " of English arrows told sadly 
on the ranks of the spearmen, and, had it lasted, " it had 
been hard to Scottishmen." But the King Imew well the 
peril of the arrow, and sent his horse upon the English 
bowmen with lance and spear. They were soon scattered, 
and the Scottish archers began to " wax hardy, and shot 
eagerly among the horsemen." Scottish voices were 
heard, shouting, " On them, on them, on them ; they fail !" 
and the English resistance gradually lessened. They 
had taken too little ground, and it was impossible to rally 
or to send up fresh soldiers from the rear to meet the 
spearmen, who were slowly making good their advance, 
and still further lessening the narrow space in which the 
English were fighting. With the consciousness of defeafc 
already upon them, the English saw a new army coming 
to reinforce the Scots. The camp-followers on the Gillies' 
Hill had watched the progress of the battle, and, deeming 
a Scottish victory certain, they resolved to " see the 
fight." Cutting down young trees, they used them as 
poles, and converted their blankets into banners, and 
they rushed down the hill shouting, " Slay, slay ! upon 
them hastily !" King Robert's battle-cry sounded over 
the field, as he and the other Scottish leaders perceived 
the effect of the incident upon the enemy. The flight had 
begun, but still " they that were wight and hardy " main- 
tained their resistance against terrible odds. Many of 
the English, like Sir Giles de Argentine, chose " here to 
bide and die." Another fate was reserved for their 
unfortunate King. " Sire," said Sir Giles to Edward, 
" your rein was committed to me ; you are now in safety ; 
there is your castle, where your person may be safe. I am 



not accustomed to fly, nor am I going to begin now. I 
commend you to God." While Sir Giles was making his 
last brave charge upon the Scots and dying amid Edward 
Bruce 's spearmen, his Sovereign pressed on to the castle. 
But Stirling was no stronghold for a King of England, 
and its Governor warned Edward that it could not stand 
a siege. Closely pursued by Douglas, he fled to Dunbar, 
and thence to Berwick. 

It is not possible to tell the numbers of Englishmen 
who died on the " evil deep wet marsh " of the Bannock- 
burn. Edward's great host fled in complete rout and 
with terrible slaughter. The spoils of his camp adorned 
Scottish homes and churches till the Reformation. 
Bruce held many prisoners to ransom, and his wife and 
daughter returned to Scotland to share his triumph. 
Though the independence of Scotland was won on the 
field of Bannockburn, fourteen years had to pass before 
it was acknowledged. The military history of the years 
that followed Bruce's greatest day is, of necessity, of 
the nature of an anti-climax. The Scots fought, with 
varying success, in England and in Ireland ; the English, 
with unvarying evil fortune, in Scotland. In 1315, 
Edward Bruce invaded Ireland, in the hope of carving 
out for himself a kingdom in the distressful land. In 
May, 1316, he was crowned King of Ireland, but his 
kingdom was still to win. King Bobert conducted an 
Irish campaign in 1316-17, and the two royal brothers 
had some successes, but in October, 1318, Edward Bruce 
was defeated and slain near Dundalk. Meanwhile Pope 
John XXII. had been trying to make peace between 
England and Scotland. The excommunicated monarch 
became "our well-beloved son," but the Papacy still 
refused to acknowledge his kingship, and the Bruce, 
strong in the knowledge of the loyalty of the Scottish 
clergy, treated with an easy and tolerant amusement 



the efforts of Mother Church. His most cogent reply 
to the Pope was the capture, in 1318, of Berwick-on- 
Tweed, which had been held by the English for twenty 
years. Next year Edward II. failed to regain the town, 
and Douglas and Randolph defeated, at Mitton-on-Swale, 
the clerical army of the Archbishop of York. These 
triumphs lightened the burden of Papal curses, and 
procured a two years' truce, during which the Scottish 
clergy sent the Pope a character-sketch of Edward I., 
drawn in much the same colours as the English chroniclers 
use to depict Wallace. A mysterious plot temporarily 
weakened the position of Bruce, and the English King, 
emboldened by a success over his own Barons, again 
besieged Berwick in 1322, and ravaged the Lothians, 
where, as usual, he found food neither for man nor for 
beast. He retreated into Yorkshire, was surprised by 
King Robert at Byland, and fled for his life. " The 
Scots," says the English writer of the Scalacronica, 
" were so fierce, and their chiefs so daring, and the 
English so badly cowed, that it was no otherwise between 
them than as a hare before greyhounds." Treachery 
added to Edward's military troubles, and a truce for 
thirteen years was made in March, 1323. The Pope 
offered to acknowledge Bruce and recall the ban of ex- 
communication if he would restore Berwick to the 
English ; the condition was not accepted, but the Papal 
acknowledgment was given. 

The deposition of Edward II. was followed by a vigorous 
Scottish invasion, and the English began to despair of 
their ability to meet " these Scottish men, right hardy 
and sore travailing in harness and in wars. . . . They 
carry with them none other purveyance, but on their 
horse between the saddle and the panel they truss a broad 
plate of metal, and behind the saddle they will have a 
little sack of oatmeal, to the intent that when they have 



eaten of the sodden flesh [of captured beasts], then they 
lay this plate on the fire and mix a little oatmeal and 
when the plate is hot they cast of the thin paste thereon, 
and so make a Httle cake in manner of a cracknel or 
biscuit, and that they eat to comfort withal their stomachs. 
Wherefore it is no marvel though they make greater 
jom-neys than other people do." Against this mobile 
force the EngKsh Regents brought the young Edward III., 
who commenced his glorious career by narrowly escaping 
capture. In May, 132S, the English Government agreed 
to the Treaty of Xorthampton, by which the independence 
of Scotland was acknowledged. 

The authority of King Robert had long been 
accepted by the whole country, and Highlanders and 
Islesmen had fought for him at Byland as at Bannock- 
bum. The Scots who resisted Edward," wrote Pro- 
fessor Freeman. " were the English of Lothian. The 
true Scots, out of hatred to the * Saxons ' nearest to 
them, leagued with the " Saxons ' farther off." The 
history of the War of Independence affords no proof for 
this dogmatic generalization. Centuries had to pass 
before the Scottish Highlanders were taught to speak of 
their Lowland countrymen as *' Saxons," and the story of 
the Bruce *s wars is not the story of a country divided by 
racial feeling. There was always an English party in 
Scotland, or, more accurately, there were always Scottish 
nobles who intrigued with the Enghsh ; but they never 
had either racial or geographical unity : their motives were 
always personal, and their objects invariably capable of 
definite explanation. The Scottish enemies of Bruce 
were separated from him by a blood-feud, and it was not 
easy for hi ni either to grant or to receive forgiveness. 
Many of them refused to enter his peace and accept his 
rule, and the Treaty of Xorthampton secured no pro- 
vision for the friends of the English. King Robert sur- 



vived the treaty for less than a year. He left his country 
two great legacies — wise precepts for retaining the free- 
dom he had gained, and the means through which con- 
stitutional liberty might be achieved by a united nation. 
The Scots honoured his great name, but forgot the lessons 
he had tried to teach. They failed in the methods of 
fighting which tradition described as " good King Robert's 
Testament,'' and they could never be persuaded to make 
the continuous effort which was necessary to keep the 
nation in a state of defence. The neglect of the lessons 
taught by Bruce's wars was the moral, ever disregarded, 
of many a Border battle-field. Xor did Scotland, until 
very late in its history as a separate nation, succeed in 
employing the constitutional machinery introduced by 
Kling Robert. In the English ParHaments of his great 
enemy he had grasped the significance of the principle 
that what touches all should be considered by aU. and. as 
the ruler of Scotland, he made a memorable change in 
the constitution of the Scottish ParHament. Under his 
predecessors it had been in theory the Great Council of 
aU the tenants who held their lands directly from the 
Crown, in practice a meeting of the great Barons. In 
1326. King Robert summoned to a Parhament at the 
Abbey of Cambuskenneth burgesses and aU other free 
tenants of the kingdom.'' * If the precedent thus created 
did not possess the full significance of the summons of 
English burgesses by Simon de Mont fort and by Edward I., 
yet it was, at the least, a recognition of the right of the 
commonalty to discuss the expenditure of the kingdom. 
But more than a century had to pass before this came to 
be regarded as an essential element in the constitution, 
and even when it was admitted, much remained to be 
done before amthing resembling constitutional govern- 

* C/. the present writer's Scottish Parliament before the Union of 
the Crowns. 



ment was achieved in the last dying years of the Parlia- 
ment of Scotland. 

The end of the Bruce 's life was clouded by the death of his 
Queen in 1327, and by a painful disease, generally believed 
to be leprosy. On June 7, 1329, at Cardross, on the 
Clyde, died 

" He that all our comfort was, 
Our wit and all our governing." 

Amid lamentations which Barbour thought it passed the 
skill of poets to recount, Robert I. was buried by his wife 
at Dunfermline. His heart, in accordance with his djdng 
wish, was entrusted to Douglas's "high emprise," to be 
carried into battle against the infidel. The Douglas fell 
on a Spanish battle-field, and the Bruce's heart was carried 
back to Scotland with the bones of Douglas, and laid to 
rest at Melrose ; 

. . . where men pray aye 
That he and his have Paradise." 

King Robert left as his successor a boy of five, whose 
right had been acknowledged by the Parliament of Cam- 
buskenneth, and who, in accordance with a provision of 
the Treaty of Northampton, had already been married to 
the Princess Joanna, sister of Edward III. Marjorie 
Bruce, the only daughter of the King's first marriage and 
heir-presumptive to her half-brother, was now the widow 
of Walter the Steward, who had fought with Douglas at 
Bannockburn, and the mother of a son who was to become 
the Sovereign of Scotland. David II. contributed little 
to the making of Scotland, but his inglorious reign shows 
how deep were the foundations upon which his father 
had built. The strength which had come out of weak- 
ness, and which had made the Scottish name feared as 
well as hated in England, seemed at first to have passed 
away with the leaders in the great war. When Bruce 

KING JAMES IV. (1488-1513). Page 125. 
From the painting in the Scottish Naiimal Portrait Gallery. 



lay in his marble tomb at Dunfermline and Douglas 
among his own people, there was left but one Scotsman 
who had attained unto the rank of the first three. Ran- 
dolph, Earl of Moray, was the Regent of Scotland for 
three years after Bruce 's death. These years saw the 
overthrow of the English Queen-Mother and her paramour, 
and the establishment of the personal rule of Edward III. 
The young King soon found a pretext for denouncing the 
" shameful treaty " of Northampton. Espousing the 
cause of the " disinherited " who had lost their Scottish 
lands for their allegiance to the English, he recognized 
Edward Balliol as King of Scotland, and lent him an army 
with which to regain his father's vassal crown. In June, 
1332, while the son of John Balliol was preparing for his in- 
vasion, the Regent died at Musselburgh, the last of the 
paladins of King Robert. Randolph was succeeded by 
his cousin, the Earl of Mar, also, but not likewise, a nephew 
of the Bruce. Balliol landed at Kinghorn and marched 
towards Perth. Mar, at the head of a larger army, 
met him at Dupplin. The Scots had begun to despise 
their enemy, and boasted over their cups of dragging the 
Englishmen by the tails which every medieval hater of 
England knew them to possess. They allowed the 
English army to cross the River Earn on the night of 
August 11, and, next morning, they made a headlong 
rush at the foe. Armed with pikes and spears, they 
thrust at the main body of the English, neglecting the 
long thin line of bowmen which extended on either side. 
Skill and archery won the day, and on September 24 
"Edward I." was crowned at Scone as the liegeman of 
the King of England. Twelve weeks later he fled from the 
Scottish borders, " one leg booted and the other naked." 
The leaders of the small force which surprised King Edward 
Balliol at Annan were a son of Randolph and a brother 
of the Black Douglas. The incident supplies the only 




heroic episode in the career of Sir Archibald Douglas, who, 
in 1333, became Regent of Scotland, and earned for him- 
self the name of " Tyneman the Unlucky." Edward III., 
" eager for arms and glory," undertook the restoration of 
Balliol, and besieged Berwick. The Scots claimed that 
they had technically relieved the town, but it was no time 
for formal arguments about the laws of arms, and the 
English -King hanged a hostage and forced the Regent to 
fight a pitched battle. The narrative of Dupplin Moor is 
the story of Halidon Hill, where, on July 19, 1333, a great 
Scottish army was destroyed by the bowmen of England. 
The Regent Douglas was slain and the Earl of Moray fled 
to France. The English rejoiced that the shame of 
Bannockburn had been wiped out. 

" Scots out of Berwick, and out of Aberdeen, 
At the Burn of Bannock, ye were far too keen. 
Many guiltless men ye slew, as was clearly seen. 
But King Edward has avenged it now, and fully too, I ween, 
He has avenged it well, I ween. Woe worth the while ! 
I bid you all beware of Scots, for they are full of guile," 

sang the soldier-poet, Lawrence Minot.* 

After the Battle of Halidon Hill, Balliol ceded to 
Edward III. the counties of Dumfries, Roxburgh, Ber- 
wick, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Edinburgh, and 
Linlithgow. The Scots were hopelessly divided, for the 
English party had gained courage and confidence. Once 
again there is no indication that they fought for anything 
but personal advantage. Divided as the Scots were, the 
division was neither racial nor geographical, and High- 
landers from Ross and Sutherland and Argyll fought on 
the national side at Halidon Hill along with Stewarts and 
Gordons and Boyds. There were many traitors and 
turncoats, but, after their manner, they soon began to 
quarrel among themselves. The Earl of Moray returned 
from France, and along with Robert the High Steward, 
♦ * Translated by F. York Powell. 



the nephew and heir of the little King, undertook the 
guardianship of Scotland. In 1334, and again in 1335, 
Edward ravaged Scotland, and although the Scots drove 
Balliol again to take refuge in England, and won two 
small victories at the Borough Muir of Edinburgh and 
at Kilblain, the cause of freedom seemed wellnigh hope- 
less. The Lord of the Isles made terms with Balliol. 
Edward III., in the summer of 1336, penetrated as far 
north as Elgin, burning and slaying in the fashion of his 
grandfather, and there was famine in the land. But in 
the winter of 1336-37 some of the strongholds were taken 
from the English, and the following autumn brought the 
good news that Edward had resolved to win for himself a 
wider and a fairer domain than the eight Scottish counties 
which his vassal had surrendered to him. The Sovereign 
of England adopted the style of King of France, and 
the Scots were left to deal in their own way with Scottish 
traitors and English garrisons. That way was now the 
way of Bruce and Douglas and Randolph. Castle after 
castle was recovered in the next four years, and though 
the English long held great tracts of Southern Scotland, 
the national independence was safe. The noblest tale of 
these days is of the siege of the Castle of Dunbar, assaulted 
by the English by land and sea. It was defended by the 
great Randolph's daughter, Agnes, Countess of March, 
whose lord, after many tergiversations, had resolved to 
stand by his young King. After six months of fruitless 
effort the English had to raise the siege ; 

" Came I early, came I late, 
I found Agnes at the gate." 

When Stirling and Edinburgh were in Scottish hands, 
it was deemed safe to bring back David II. from France, 
where he had been sent in 1334. To the foreign influ- 
ences of seven years in France were soon to be added 



those of an eleven years' captivity in England. In the 
year of the campaign of Crecy he attempted to assist his 
French allies by an invasion of England. A quarrel 
among the Islesmen deprived him of a part of his army, 
but he entered England with a considerable force, and in 
October, 1346, he faced, at Neville's Cross, near Durham, 
an English host led by the clergy of the northern province. 
The " wretched monks " completely defeated him and 
captured his person, and " all men with one accord laid 
the blame upon the plundering of churches " which had 
marked David's southward march. Another explanation 
may be found in the usual neglect of the English archers. 
As at Dupplin and HaUdon, they were spread out so as 
to command both the wings of the Scottish army. No 
charge of cavalry harassed them or disturbed their aim, 
and the Scots, outmanoeuvred and forced to fight in a 
narrow space, fell an easy prey to the enemy. David, 
who had shown personal courage in the battle, lived 
happily in England, while Robert the Steward ruled 
Scotland and evinced no strong desire for the return of 
the captive. In 1352, David was allowed to visit Scotland 
to negotiate for his ransom. He failed, probably through 
suggesting dishonourable terms, and an agreement made 
in 1354 was not carried out. The Black Death, despite 
many vows to St. Sebastian, whose cult was regarded as 
" the sovereign remedy " for the pestilence, had carried 
off a large proportion of the poorer classes, but the Scots 
made another effort on behalf of the French, and won, 
in 1355, a small victory at Nesbit in Berwickshire, and 
captured the town of Berwick. Edward retook it next 
year, and revenged himself by a devastation of Southern 
Scotland, in which he spared neither church nor monas- 
tery. The " Burned Candlemas " of 1356 was long re- 
membered in Scotland ; it is satisfactory to know that it 
was to some extent avenged by attacks on Edward's 

Etnery n ai/ier. 

Born 14>»9, and was married to James IV. in 1.W3. 
the pointing in the style of Bernard Van Odey in the National Portrait Gallery, London. 



retreating army. At last, in 1357, peace was made, and 
David returned to raise the large ransom with which the 
Scots had bought his freedom. He loved the chivaby of 
England and the splendour of Edward's Court, and he 
hated the nephew by whom he was to be succeeded. In 
1363, the son of Kobert Bruce went to London and offered 
to sell the freedom of Scotland to the grandson of 
Edward I. The poverty of the country and his own 
extravagant expenditure made it difficult to raise the 
3'earh' instalment of his ransom, and he offered, in lieu of 
gold, to acknowledge either Edward himseK or one of his 
sons as the heir to the throne of Scotland. The second 
alternative was regarded as more likely to please the 
Scots, and David, on his return, laid before his Parlia- 
ment a proposition that Prince Lionel of England should, 
in default of issue of his own body, be acknowledged the 
heir of Scotland. The long absence of the King, the 
weakness of Robert the Steward, and the necessity of 
raising the ransom money, had recently given to the 
Scottish Estates a temporary possession of the supreme 
power, and even at the worst of times they would have 
declined to agree 

" That only Inglis mannys sone 
Into that honour siild be done." 

The negotiations came at once to an end, and the 
" Englishman " whose son had been contemned de- 
manded payment to the uttermost farthing, disowned 
King David, and prepared to conquer Scotland. The 
grave difficulty of raising the payments for the royal 
ransom caused great discontent, and the Lord of the Isles 
threatened rebellion. But the Black Prince had mean- 
while involved England in a new French war, and Edward, 
in 1369, agreed to a truce with Scotland. The Islesmen 
submitted, and David was free to attend to his domestic 



troubles. Queen Joanna had died in 1362, on one of the 
frequent visits which she and her husband paid to England 
after his captivity was ended. David had married again, 
and was trying to divorce his second wife, for whose sake 
he had indulged in a new feud with Robert the Steward. 
His repudiation of her nearly brought the country under an 
interdict, while the King was vowing to go upon a Crusade. 
In February, 1371, David died. He had got a good 
deal of pleasure out of life in spite of adverse conditions. 
His country owed him no gratitude and gave him none. 
It was perhaps right that his father's son should not die 
in the English captivity which he loved, but the Scots 
would have been well advised to leave him a hostage in 
Edward's hands. The essential strength of the Scottish 
love of freedom was shown when a nation rallied under 
the standard of the friend of Edward I., and it is not less 
clearly discernible when we consider that the indepen- 
dence of Scotland survived the reign of David Bruce. 



The reigns of the first two Kings of the House of Stewart 
connect the struggle for independence with what is 
generally known as the period of the Jameses, the two 
centuries during which Scotland, as a free and inde- 
pendent kingdom, followed its own destiny, created its 
internal organization, and laid the foundations of a 
system the influence of which can readily be traced to- 
day. Robert II. ruled for nineteen years (1371-1390), 
and his son for sixteen years (1390-1406). Their reigns 
are memorable in tradition and legend. A dead Douglas 
won the field at Otterburn, Hal o' the Wynd fought for 
his own hand in the battle of the clans at Perth, and the 
heir to the throne died mysteriously at Falkland. It is 
the period of Froissart and of the Fair Maid of Perth, of 
men and deeds enshrined in ballad and romance. The 
chivalrous and the tragic in these familiar stories depend 
upon no myths : to the annalist they are not less real 
than to the poet. They are immortal by virtue of an 
eternal hold upon the imagination. " A very wise man," 
said a later Scottish statesman, " believed that if a man 
were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care 
who should make the laws of a nation." Judged by this 
test, the thirty-five years of the two Roberts have a very 
large place in the record of the making of Scotland, and 
this is their highest importance in our story. 




The belief, commonly held in England, that the 
medieval Scots paid in continuous poverty and misery 
the penalty of their refusal to meet the benevolent 
wishes of Edward I. is approximately true of the last 
quarter of the fourteenth century. Chroniclers and 
Acts of Parliament bear witness to the sorrows of Scotland. 
The strong, they tell us, oppressed the weak, murders and 
ravages were of everyday occurrence, justice seemed to 
have deserted the land. The explanation lies in the 
weakness of the Kings, the ambition of the great Border 
family of Douglas, and the almost constant warfare with 
England. When Robert the Steward — the title of the 
office had been adopted as the family name, and soon 
came frequently to be written " Stewart " — ascended 
the throne, he was nearly fifty-six years of age, older by 
eight years than the uncle whom he succeeded, and 
already a man whose best work was done. He was tall 
and handsome, but the beauty of his countenance was 
spoiled by his inflamed eyes — so bloodshot, says Frois- 
sart, that they looked as if they were lined with scarlet. 
Peaceable and kindly in his old age, 

" A tenderer heart might no man have." 

The succession was disputed by William, Earl of 
Douglas, who seems to have taken the view that might 
was capable of conferring right. He did not, however, 
put it to the test, but was content with a marriage alliance 
with the royal family and an increase of his own power 
which made him almost the Sovereign of the South of 
Scotland. The reign began with a renewal of the French 
alliance ; in 1372 an offensive and defensive treaty 
permanently united Scotland and France against England. 
A nominal truce existed between England and Scotland, 
but the English still held Scottish Border strongholds, and 
Border warfare went on continuously. The Scots, under 



the Earl of March, son of Black Agnes, " made slaughter 
and pillage of the English " at the Bloody Fair of Rox- 
burgh in 1377, and the Earl of Northumberland, in 
revenge, wasted the country near Dunse, and, after 
three days, was driven back ignominiously. A temporary 
capture of Berwick in 1378 brought fresh glory to the 
Scottish arms, and petty invasions and counter-invasions 
led, in 1380, to the despatch of an English army against 
Scotland. Its commander, John of Gaunt, desired peace, 
and he had no difficulty in persuading the Scots to make 
a short truce. Next year he came back again, fortu- 
nately for his own safety. He left London in May ; if he 
had delayed a few weeks longer, he would almost certainly 
have perished in the Peasants' Revolt. His second visit 
prolonged the truce till 1384, and the peace-maker, whose 
unpopularity in England prevented his return to London, 
went to Holyrood as the guest of the Scots. 

When the truce expired, early in 1384, the Scots were 
included in a fresh truce made between England and 
France ; but its existence was concealed from the Scots 
for two months, and both countries were ready to take 
advantage of an opportunity for warfare. The Scots 
captured Lochmaben Castle, and restored Scottish rule 
in Annandale, and John of Gaunt invaded Scotland, 
" doing as little evil as he could for the courtesy and 
hospitality with which he himself had been received." 
The new truce was short-lived, but even while it was 
nominally in existence some French knights, with their 
Scottish hosts, made an unauthorized raid upon the lands 
of the Percies, who retaliated in like manner. Berwick 
had been taken and retaken before the technical renewal 
of warfare in 1385. French soldiers were sent to Scot- 
land ; they were from the first on bad terms with the 
Scots, and they could not be expected to sympathize 
with the Scottish desire to avoid a pitched battle. They 



took part in nothing greater than a Border raid, which 
was avenged after their departure by an invasion eon- 
ducted by Richard II. in person, and remarkable for its 
ferocity. " He ravaged all things in his pride, sparing 
nothing, saving nothing, and having no mercy on age or 
on religion." The ultimate fate of the English monarch 
seemed to the Scottish chroniclers to be the judgment of 
God to avenge the smoking ruins of the great abbeys of 
Melrose, Dryburgh, and Newbattle. 

The Scots did not wait for the Divine vengeance. An 
army, led by King Robert's second son, the Earl of Fife, 
and James, Earl of Douglas, invaded England, and the 
force under Douglas won, in August, 1388, the Battle of 
Otterburn ; 

" This was the Hunting of the Cheviot 
That e'er began this spurn I 
Old men, that knowen the ground well, 
Call it of Otterburn. 

" There never was a time on the Marche-partes 
Since the Douglas and Percy met 
But 'tis marvel an the red blood run not 
As the reane does in the street." 

Robert II. died in 1390. He was seventy-four years 
old, an age reached by no Sovereign of the turbulent 
kingdom of England until the eighteenth century. In 
his last year, the Earl of Fife had acted as Guardian of 
the kingdom, and this arrangement continued through the 
greater part of the new reign. The Earl of Carrick, when 
he abandoned his own name of John, unlucky alike in 
English, in French, and in Scottish history, for the more 
illustrious title of Robert III., was about fifty- three 
years of age. Tall, like his father, he had already a long 
white beard, and he was generally regarded as a genial 
man, too feeble for the task to which he was called. A 
kick from the horse of a Douglas had rendered him per- 
manently lame, and seriously affected his health. His 


legitimacy, like that of his masterful younger brother 
who ruled the kingdom, was open to grave doubts, for it 
depended upon legitimization by subsequent matrimony, 
and his half-brother, the Earl of Athol, had reasonable 
grounds for regarding him as merely one of the numerous 
illicit progeny of Robert II. The latter portion of the 
epitaph which he is recorded to have suggested for 
himself, "the worst of Kings and the most wretched of 
men," was appropriate enough for his sad life and his 
troubled reign. 

For the first ten years, except for Border outrages, 
there was peace with England, but almost constant 
disorder in Scotland itself. The chroniclers record the 
ferocity of the King's brother, the Wolf of Badenoch, who 
ravaged Morayshire and burned the cathedral church at 
Elgin, and they teU of tumults and fighting in Forfar- 
shire and in Aberdeenshire, as weU as of the clan fight 
in 1396 on the North Inch of Perth, when official sanction 
was given to a strange tournament. The clans, generally 
described as Chattan and Kay, sent thirty men each to 
combat in the presence of the King. Only twelve are 
recorded to have survived, including Hal o' the Wynd, the 
Perth blacksmith, who had filled a vacant place in the 
ranks of the Clan Chattan. A deadly feud in the royal 
family led to the ^greatest Itragedy "of ^the reign. The 
King's eldest son, who in 1398 had been created Duke of 
Rothesay, determined to wrest the government from the 
hands of his uncle, who had become Duke of Albany in 
the same year. Rothesay, who seems not to have 
deserved Wyntoun's epitaph of " sweet and virtuous," 
became Guardian in 1399. He began his two years' 
rule by driving a powerful Scottish noble into the English 
camp. The daughter of the Earl of March, who had 
played so large a part in the recovery of lands from the 
English under Robert II., had been betrothed to Rothe- 



say. but he refused to carry out the contract, and 
married a daughter of the Earl of Douglas. At the same 
time he was fooUsh enough to hesitate about acknowledg- 
ing Henry IV. as the successor of Richard II.. and Henry, 
in alliance with the Scottish Earl of March, invaded Scot- 
land in the simimer of 1400. The son of John of Gaunt 
seems to have inherited his father's kindness towards 
Scotland, and the invaders were imusuaUy mild in their 
treatment of the country. Rothesay defended the Castle 
of Edinburgh, but Albany, though he was at the head of 
a Scottish army, made no effort to interfere with the pro- 
gress of the English. Henry was summoned to suppress 
a Welsh revolt, and left Scotland about two weeks after 
he had crossed the Border. Rothesay soon quarrelled 
with the Douglases. Albany again became Guardian in 

1401. and next year Rothesay died at Falkland. The 
opportune moment of his death is the most serious 
ground for suspecting Albany of the murder which 
tradition has generally ascribed to him. 

Albany contiaued the war with England, and the Scots 
suffered defeats of the normal type at Xesbit in June. 

1402. and at Homildon Hill in September of the same year. 
The Scottish archers were outranged, their spearmen 
were broken up by the English arrows, and the battles 
became massacres. The aUiance of the Percies, the 
victors of Homildon Hill, with the Douglas who had been 
in command of a portion of the Scottish army, led to the 
rebellion of the Percies against Henry IT. and the Battle 
of Shrewsbury, and active operations in Scotland came to 
an end for three years. Hostilities broke out again in 
1405. and in the spring of the following year the English 
captured the heir to the Scottish throne. The old King, 
fearing that Prince James would share the fate of his 
elder brother, sent him to be educated in France, and 
his vessel was captured off Flamborough Head. The 



news broke his father's heart, and in April. 1406, 
Robert III. died. 

Albany held the Regency till hi^ death in Later 
generations have thought of him chiefly as the murderer 
of his nephew, but his contemporaries regarded him as 
wise. just, generous;, and successful. He waged no great 
war with England, but in the intervals of truces he 
recovered Jedburgh (which had been held by the English 
for nearly eighty years), and he made terms with the 
renegade Earl of March, whos^ son won back from the 
English his heritage of Fast Castle, on St. Abbs Head. 
The enemy did not faU to retaUate, and the Scots did 
not always have the best of it. The " Foul Raid " of 
1416. which failed to gain either Ber\^ick or Roxburgh, 
detracted from Albany's military reputation, but he 
made substantial progress in the gradual recovery of 
Southern Scotland. He died just before a Scottish army 
fought on French soil the battle which ranks next to 
Bannockburn among Scottish victories. The invasion of 
France by Henry V. afforded a fresh opportunity for 
attacking England, and in 1421 the Scots defeated the 
English at the Battle of Bauge, and captured the Earl of 
Somerset . 

The Regent's internal administration forms a memor- 
able epoch in Scottish history, for it witnessed the first 
burning of a heretic, the foundation of the oldest Uni- 
versity in Scotland, and the suppression of an unusually 
dangerous intrigue with England. James Resby, " an 
English priest of the school of John Wychfie,'' was tried 
at Perth in 1406 or 1407 as a famous preacher of heretical 
doctrine. Two out of forty accusations against him are 
recorded by Bower. He had said that ** the Pope is not 
necessarily the Vicar of Christ,*' and that '* he is neither 
Pope nor t he Vicar of Christ if he be not a holy man . ' ' The 
chronicler is more concerned to convince us of the enormity 



of his offence than to tell us to what extent his doctrines 
had spread in the land, but he does say that at this time 
the tenets and the writings of Wycliffe were treasured 
by some Lollards in Scotland. His chronicle relates, in 
1432, the death of another heretic, Paul Crawar, a Bo- 
hemian physician. Crawar was tried before the Judge 
who had condemned Resby, an inquisitor " who never 
allowed heretics in the kingdom to rest." Both men were 
burned to ashes. Each may have held the monstrous 
tenets which were associated with certain aspects of 
Lollardy, but protests against Roman doctrine made 
such distinct progress in the beginning of the fifteenth 
century that in 1425 Parliament had to legislate for their 
repression. The foundation of Universities was a more 
appropriate method of meeting the danger of heresy 
than appeals to the flames, and Henry Wardlaw, Bishop 
of St. Andrews, was probably influenced, like college 
founders in England, by a desire to secure an educated 
clergy capable of arguing with the heretics, when, be- 
tween 1411 and 1414, he created the first Scottish 

The Western Isles had passed from Norway to the 
Scottish Crown only in 1266, and they had never been 
subdued by a Scottish King. Islesmen had fought for 
Scotland in the War of Independence, but, like the Anglo- 
Norman Barons in other parts of the country, they had 
occasionally intrigued with the English against the weak 
government of the Bruce 's successors. Albany had 
scarcely succeeded in bringing back the Earl of March 
to his natural allegiance when Donald of the Isles fol- 
lowed the evil example of the southern Barons. Donald 
has generally been regarded as the " assertor of Celtic 
nationality," and the leader of the last great Celtic re- 
action. His own dominions were more Scandinavian 
than Celtic ; he himself was a grandson of Robert II., and 



his quarrel with the Regent was about the earldom of 
Ross, which he claimed in the right of his wife, who was 
a member of a Lowland family. When he proffered his 
worthless allegiance to Henry IV. of England, and led an 
army to the mainland, he had to meet on the battle- 
field first the Mackays and then the Erasers. Conquer- 
ing his Highland enemies, he marched to plunder the city 
of Aberdeen, and in July, 1411, was defeated at Harlaw 
by a force led by the Earl of Mar and the Provost of 
Aberdeen. It has been said that " the defeat of Donald 
of the Isles was felt as a more memorable deliverance 
even than that of Bannockburn," but the earlier Scottish 
historians give no evidence of any feeling of this kind. 
The struggle, as in the battle of the clans at Perth, was 
fierce and keen, and, sixty years later, the boys at the 
Grammar School of Haddington used, in mock fights, to 
re-enact the red Harlaw. But it was rather the ferocity 
of the battle than any sense of a great peril and a memor- 
able deHverance that lived in the recollection of the 
nation. Of the two contemporary historians, one, the 
writer of the Book of Pluscarden, dismisses the event 
in a sentence ; the other, Walter Bower, lays stress on the 
ravages of the Islesmen, and remarks that Donald hoped 
to spoil Aberdeen, and consequently to rule Scotland as 
far as the Tay. About a hundred years later, an Aber- 
deen historian. Hector Boece, wrote sympathetically 
about Donald's quarrel with Albany, and lamented that, 
instead of being satisfied with asserting his just claim 
to the earldom of Ross, he was tempted by the pillage 
of Aberdeen. The attempt of Donald of the Isles to 
avenge the injury done to him by the Regent, and to add 
to his possessions, is not in any way similar to the Celtic 
risings under the successors of Malcolm Canmore. Harlaw 
is rather, like Homildon Hill or Bauge, an incident in the 
eternal struggle with England, and the attitude of Donald 



of the Isles is similar to that of the Earl of March, or of 
many a later bearer of the Douglas name. 

When Albany died in 1420, James I. was still a prisoner 
in the hands of the English, and the Regency was con- 
tinued in the person of Albany's son, Murdoch, the 
second Duke, who had been captured at Homildon Hill, 
and had suffered a captivity of fourteen years. We know 
the history of his four years of Regency from chroniclers 
who admired the strong rule of his enemy. King James, 
but there can be little doubt that he was incapable, and 
that his sons were disturbers of the peace. After the 
death of Henry V., the English agreed to accept a ransom 
for the Scottish King, and James returned to Scotland 
in 1424, bringing home with him as his bride the lady of 
of the King^s Quair, Joan Beaufort, daughter of the 
Earl of Somerset, who had been captured at Bauge, and a 
granddaughter of John of Gaunt. A poet and a musician, 
a lover of gardens, and a patron of art, James I. was also 
a man of action. His short powerful frame had nothing 
of the picturesque beauty attributed to his tall, hand- 
some father and to his cousins of the House of Albany, 
but he was a great wrestler, a fearless horseman, a runner, 
and an archer. He came to Scotland determined to rule 
absolutely, and to rule well. Bower* says that on the 
day of his arrival tales of rapine and theft were brought 
to him, to illustrate the weakness of the Regent's govern- 
ment. "With God's help," he said, "if He grant me 
hfe, if He grant me but the life of a dog, I will make the 
key keep the castle and the bracken bush the cow." 

This vow he attempted to fulfil, but he had Httle 
statesmanship and no caution. He began by attacking 
the family of Albany, and one of the Regent's sons soon 
gave him, by a wild deed of violence, a pretext for their 

* Walter Bower, Abbot of Inchcolm, died 1449, supposed to be the 
continuator of the Scotichronicon. 

KING JAMES V. (1513-1542). Pagel38. 
From the painting in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. 


destruction. In 1425, Albany and two of his sons were 
beheaded at Stirling, along with the Earl of Lennox, 
whose daughter Albany had married. Two years later, 
in a Parliament at Inverness, James imprisoned Alex- 
ander of the Isles, the son of the warrior of Harlaw, and 
forty minor chiefs. Alexander, on his release, raised a 
rebellion, and, after burning the town of Inverness, was 
defeated at Lochaber by the King in person. Before the 
high-altar at Holyrood, the Lord of the Isles, clad only in 
shirt and drawers, gave up his naked sword to the King 
of Scotland, and, though the Western Highlands were 
not yet pacified, Alexander took no further share in 
opposing the royal authority. In the Lowlands, James 
adopted the policy of annexing the great earldoms to the 
Crown, and, on pretexts which it is impossible to justify, 
he seized the lands of Strathearn, March, and Mar. 
These things were aU done with the consent of the Parlia- 
ment of Scotland. James had known England in the 
great days of Lancastrian constitutionalism, and his 
ideal was a strong monarchy based upon Parliamentary 
consent. He was not in any sense a " constitutionalist." 
The Scottish Parliament had never possessed any in- 
dependent power, and was partly a judicial body and 
partly an instrument for recording the decisions of the 
Government. James had no intention of creating a 
power to rival his o^vn, but he wished to strengthen the 
lower orders in the Estates, that they might support him 
against the Barons. The right of the lesser tenants-in- 
chief to attend Parliament was freely admitted, but it 
was rarely exercised, and James attempted to compel 
them to send representatives, or " commissioners of the 
shires." He did not propose to extend the franchise as 
it had been extended in England, but merely to secure 
the presence of some of the lesser Barons, aU of whom 
were, in theory, bound to attend. His legislation was 




inoperative, and an attempt to create the office of a 
Speaker for the Commons was also fruitless. His efforts 
to lay the foundation of an effective and permanent con- 
stitutional system thus failed, but he was able to increase 
the importance of the Commons of his own Parliaments, 
for from the second year of his active reign until his death 
we find no trace of the General Committee, known as the 
Lords of the Articles, which, at almost every other 
period of Scottish history, from David II. to Charles II., 
monopolized the power of Parliament. 

In his dealings with his Parliaments, James was almost 
uniformly successful, and they passed a large number 
of Acts, in many of which we can trace the influence 
of the King's English experience. They provided for 
national defence on the lines of English Assizes of Arms, 
and forbade football, which distracted attention from 
archery. They dealt with labour and commerce, and 
instituted a system of licensed beggars. They followed 
the precedents of the anti-Papal legislation of Edward III. 
and Richard II., and forbade the purchase of Scottish 
benefices at Rome. James instituted, with the sanction 
of the Estates, a Quo Warranto inquiry into baronial 
trespasses on the rights of the Crown. He appointed 
permanent Lords of Session to do the judicial work, which 
had hitherto been performed by temporary Parliamentary 
committees, and he tried to compel the hereditary 
Sheriffs to enforce the laws. Twice he persuaded the 
Estates to grant him a subsidy, such as Parliaments at 
Westminster granted to the Kings of England, and this 
taxation gave his enemies an excuse for denouncing him 
as a tyrant. 

For nine years after his return there was peace with 
England, although on French soil Scotsmen aided the 
Maid at Pathay, and suffered in the Battle of the Herrings 
the fate of Scottish armies at Halidon and Homildon. 



In 1428, James agreed to marry his eldest daughter, 
Margaret, to the Dauphin, the future Louis XI. In 1433 
the English offered a treat}^ of perpetual peace, and the 
restoration of Roxburgh and Berwick ; but the ancient 
league vdth. France was not to be abandoned lightly, and 
the old Border warfare began again. In 1436 the English 
tried to capture the Princess Margaret on her way to 
France, and James avenged the insult by an unsuccessful 
siege of Roxburgh. " God knoweth how great weeping 
there was on both sides," said an eyewitness of the part- 
ing between James and his twelve-year-old daughter. 
The child was going to a strange land, where her life was 
to be brief, loveless, and unhappy. Her father did not 
live to learn her sorrows. By just rule and by arbitrary 
acts alike, he had roused many enemies, and in February, 
1437, he fell a victim to a conspiracy, inspired by his 
uncle, the Earl of Athol, a son of Robert II. by his second 
wife. If Robert III. was an illegitimate son, Athol was 
the direct heir to the throne, and the chronicler of 
Pluscarden accuses "that old serpent of many evil days, 
the Earl of Athol," of advising the destruction, first of 
the Duke of Rothesay and then of Albany and his sons, 
in order to get rivals out of his way. Neither Bower 
nor the Pluscarden writer gives us a detailed account of 
the tragedy, and the traditional story is derived from a 
manuscript of uncertain origin. James spent the Christ- 
mas of 1436 in the Blackfriars monastery at Perth, 
where, on the night of February 20, 1437, he was attacked 
by a band of murderers. His Chamberlain, a grandson 
of Athol, was their accomplice, and had arranged for 
their entrance. The Kong, in his dressing-gown, was 
talking to the Queen and some of the ladies of the Court, 
when he heard suspicious sounds. Wrenching a plank 
from the floor, he escaped into an underground drain or 
closet, the opening of which he had himself closed up 



because it interfered with his tennis. The ladies re- 
placed the plank, and the murderers burst into the room, 
breaking, according to tradition, the arm of Catherine 
Douglas, who was trying to supply the place of the bolt 
which had been treacherously removed from the door. 
They thought that their victim had eluded them, and 
the King, imagining the danger past, cried to the ladies 
to twist sheets together and pull him up. Hearing his 
voice, the ruffians tore open the floor, descended into the 
vault, and easily overcame the stout resistance of an 
unarmed man. Scotland had lost the greatest of her 
Stewart Kings. 

A stern and cruel vengeance was taken upon the 
miirderers of James L, and his son, a child of six, was 
crowned at Holyrood as James II. The widowed Queen 
■ — the first of a succession of four Scottish Queen-Mothers 
— found it no easy task to guard her son's throne. His 
ten years of manhood were to be chiefly occupied in the 
struggle with the House of Douglas, and if the Douglases 
had done their worst in the days of his childhood, the 
event might have been different. As it was, the minority 
of James II. proved a troubled time, but the rivals whose 
ambitions destroyed the peace of the country were not 
members of any great family. Sir Alexander Livingstone 
and Sir William Crichton, Keeper of the Castle of Edin- 
burgh, struggled and intrigued for the charge of the person 
of the young King, agreed and differed again, and im- 
prisoned the Queen-Mother and her second husband. Sir 
James Stewart. In 1440, in one of their periods of 
friendship, Livingstone and Crichton put to death the 
young Earl of Douglas and his brother. Boece tells how 
the Douglases were enticed to a banquet in Edinburgh 
Castle, at which there was placed on the table a bull's 
head — a recognized token of death — and how, despite 
the entreaties of the j^oung King, the noble brothers 



were taken out to die on the Castle Hill. The murderers 
were on friendly terms with the Earl's successor, his 
great-uncle, known as James the Gross, but he died in 
1443, and his son WiUiam, Earl of Douglas, made a plot 
with Livingstone against Crichton, who allied himself with 
the only patriotic statesman of the time, the good Bishop 
Kennedy of St. Andrews, a cousin of the young King. 
The Bishop and Crichton had, on the whole, the worst 
of it, but the expiry of a truce wdth England, which had 
been made on the death of James I., diverted the atten- 
tion of the Douglases, who, by burning Alnwick and 
Warkworth, and defeating the Percies at Lochmaben 
Stone, near Gretna, recovered something of the prestige 
of their great ancestor, the Lord James. 

When, in 1449, James 11. married Mary of Gueldres, 
and became responsible for the government of the country, 
the power of the House of Douglas seriously menaced the 
authority of the Crown. Earl William had, by a for- 
tunate marriage, united the Douglas lands of Annandale 
with those of Galloway, and he was in alliance wdth the 
greatest baron of the north, the " Tiger " Earl of Craw- 
ford. James 11. — James of the Fiery Face, as he was 
called, from a broad red mark on his cheek — was a strong- 
willed, hot-tempered soldier, who had inherited his 
father's interest in the art of war. A fighter by instinct, 
he loved to share mth his men the perils and the joys 
of warfare : he went freely among them, and drank and 
conversed with them. Such a man was not likely to 
accept without a struggle the ignominious position in 
which the Crown was placed by the power enjoyed by 
the Earl of Douglas, his brothers, the Earls of Moray 
and Ormond, and his ally, the Earl of Crawford. 

James began by destroying the Livingstones. They 
had served their turn, and Douglas was satisfied to see 
them fall and to receive some of the spoils. But in 1450, 



when the Earl was on a magnificent pilgrimage to Rome, 
James entered the Douglas territory, and exacted from 
his tenants an oath of fealty. On his return, the Earl 
made no resistance, but he entered into a covenant, or 
bond, with Crawford and the Lord of the Isles. Outwardly, 
he was still on friendly terms with his Sovereign, and 
James, giving him a safe-conduct, invited him to Stirling. 
They supped together, and the King asked the Earl to 
break the bond with Crawford. He refused, and James 
lost his temper. " I perceive," he said, " my prayer can 
do nothing to cause you to desist from your wicked 
counsellors," and thrust him through the body with his 
sword. Between Stewart and Douglas there could thence- 
forth be no peace, and the Earl's successor, his brother 
James, within about a month of the murder, brought 
an armed force to Stirling, ravaged the country, and 
burned the town. A rebellion in the North, under 
Crawford, was suppressed by the Earl of Huntly ; a 
Parliament at Edinburgh sanctioned all that the King 
had done ; and a military expedition, in which there 
was more ravaging than fighting, reduced Douglas to 
what was apparently a complete submission. 

James knew that the Earl was only waiting his oppor- 
tunity. Immediately after his brother's death he had 
offered his allegiance to Henry VI., and since his sub- 
mission he had supported the King's enemies. Major* 
tells an improbable story that James dreaded the coming 
conflict, and thought of leaving Scotland, and had to be 
spurred to nobler endeavour by the Bishop of St. Andrews. 
There is no indication of this in the course of action he 
followed. He sought the final conflict, made successive 
invasions of the Douglas lands in the spring of 1455, 
captured the castles and strongholds, defeated the Earls 

* John Mair or Major, 1469-1550, author of the History of Greater 


of Ormond and Moray at Arkinholm (Langholm), and 
in the early summer destroyed the last refuge of the 
Douglases at Threave. An obedient Parliament at- 
tainted the Earls of Douglas, Moray, and Ormond. 
Douglas had fled to England, Moray had fallen at Arkin- 
holm, and Ormond suffered as a traitor. Among the 
lesser families who rose to greatness on the ruin of the 
Douglases was a younger branch of the Douglas family, 
who, as Earls of Angus, were to play a notable part in 
Scottish history. 

For the last five years of f his'^reign'^James'^suffered 
little from domestic troubles, and he continued the 
legislative work of his father. The poor and oppressed 
flocked to his Parliaments — widows, bairns, and in- 
fants seeking redress for their husbands, kindred and 
friends, that were cruelly slain by wicked bloody mur- 
derers." James and his Estates not only did them 
justice, but made an honest effort to prevent the recur- 
rence of the crimes of which they complained. It was 
a grave calamity for Scotland that the King's life was 
cut short. The Yorkist party in England had espoused 
the Douglas cause, and a Yorkist force was defeated 
at Lochmaben in 1458. After the Yorkist victory at 
Northampton in 1460, James attempted to recover the 
Castle of Roxburgh, from which his father, in the last 
months of his life, had withdrawn after a fortnight's 
siege. Both Kings were deeply interested in the pro- 
gress of artillery, which James II. had used to good effect 
against the Douglas castles. The English garrison at 
Roxburgh made a long and vigorous defence, and when 
the Earl of Huntly arrived with reinforcements for the 
besiegers, James decided to make a great effort to storm 
the castle. " But while this prince, mair curious nor 
became him or the majesty of a king, did stand near hand 
by the gunners when the artillery was discharging, his 


thigh hone wbs dung in twa with a piece of a mi^framed 
gun that brak in the shooting, by which he was strickeii 
to the ground and died hastily theieof." Their King 
had f aDen^ bnt the Soots pexseTezed in the task he had 
left unfinished. Boece tdk tiiat tiie Que^i, with her son^ 
James IH., a boy €l aboat tea jears, came to the kados 
of the army, and brought them to ocMioeal the fact of 
:hr King's death, and to betray to the army no sign 
Her sp^ch is after the manner of JAvj 
the spirit of the army which, 
in a few days, restored the GasOe of Boxbnrgh to Scot- 

The minoacilj of James lU. is ckn^ conoMBcted with 
the slmg^ between Ynk and Lancaster. ThB Queen- 
Mother, under whose care the boy-King was at first 
allowed to rranun, was a niece of Philip of Bnrgnndy, 
said her perscmal sympathies woe tiierefore likely to be 
Yorkist. In the winter which followed the King's death 
the Scots continued his Liancastzian pc^iey by as^sting 
Margaret of Anjon. bnt aftor tins date her Burgmidian 
relaticms brought pressure to besyr cm Hilary of Groeidres, 
and thenceforth she aimed at reTesing hex husband's 
policy, idiich was supported by Bishop Kamedy. After 
the Battie of Towton (^-larch. 1461), Henry VI. and 3Iar- 
garet fled to Scotland, bringing with them the smr^ider 
of Berwick, the cmly Scottish strongh(M that had not 
been recorered from the TSngtish. With such a gift tliey 
could not be raiwelwMne guests : besides, Edward lY. 
was the enemy of Frsmce. and loyalty to the Bed Boee 
meant the maintmance of the traditional Scottish policy. 
Edward retorted by maintaining the tzaditional pc^icy of 
England, an iotrigiie witii discontented ScwttiBh Barons. 
The Earl of Donglas was an Kngfish exHe, and Edward 
had little difficulty in arranging a ecMispiracy in which 
Douglas and the Lord of the Isles were united ni oppo^ 



tion to the Cro\ni. James II.. by the murder of the late 
Earl, had put an end to the " band " between the 
Douglases and John of the Isles., and., though John had 
accepted the situation and come to terms with the 
King, he was quite ready to revive the aUiance. In 
a formal treaty, negotiated by Douglas, John of the 
Isles became Edward's vassal, and for some time he used 
the royal style, and issued regal injunctions. It was 
certainly a dangerous moment for the Stewart dynasty. 
But Edward had no wish for a war with Scotland ; Mary 
of Gueldres was using her influence for a peaceful settle- 
ment, and the course of events provided a way out of 
the difficulty. The House of Lancaster, despite some 
Scottish help, was decisively beaten, and Bishop Kennedy 
recognized the facts of the situation. In 1463 Edward 
made a truce with Louis XI., and it was customary for 
Scotland to be included in truces between England and 
France. Mary of Gueldres, who died in December, 1463, 
had the satisfaction of knowing that Bishop Kennedy 
was prepared to make peace with the King of England, 
and a short truce was arranged in the month of her death. 

A Douglas invasion had been repelled by the Scots, 
and Edward sent the Earl to Ireland ; his services might 
again be wanted. The Lord of the Isles played at 
sovereignty for other twelve years. The truce of 1463 
was made into a more permanent peace in the following 
summer, and Scotland took no share in the brief Lan- 
castrian restoration of 1470. 

Kennedy died in 1465. He was a great statesman and 
a great Bishop, and Major attributes to him the pros- 
perity and comparative peace which Scotland enjoyed 
in his days. Xo man, he says, ever deserved better of 
his country. For nearly four years after his death the 
young King was in the power of the family of Boyd, one 
of whom was created Earl of Arran. but a revolution 



took place while Arran was absent negotiating the 
marriage of James III. to the Princess Margaret, daughter 
of Christian I. of Denmark and Norway. When, in July, 
1469, Arran brought the bride to Leith, he had to flee 
for his life. James began his reign in fortunate circum- 
stances. His marriage treaty not only put an end to the 
ancient claim of Norway to an annual payment for the 
Western Islands, but the Orkneys and the Shetlands 
were given in pledge for the payment of Margaret's 
dowry; they were never redeemed, and in 1472 Parlia- 
ment declared their annexation to the Crown of Scot- 
land.* The year which saw the formal annexation was 
also rendered memorable by the erection of St. Andrews 
into an archiepiscopal see, and the end of any English 
claim to ecclesiastical authority in Scotland. In 1476 
John of the Isles was reduced to complete submission by 
a military expedition, led by the Earls of Argyle, Craw- 
ford, Athole, and Huntly ; his Earldom of Koss was for- 
feited to the Crown ; his title of Lord of the Isles was 
recognized ; and, when next there was war with England, 
he supported the national cause. 

James III., unlike his father and grandfather, was no 
soldier. He is said to have contemplated the conquest 
of Brittany when it was suggested to him by the astute 
Louis XL, but " he was one that loved solitariness, and 
desired never to hear of wars nor the fame thereof, but 
delighted mair in music and policy of building than in the 
government of his realm." Architects and musicians 
were his chosen friends, and nobles and people com- 
pared him unfavourably with his brothers, the Duke of 
Albany and the Earl of Mar. Albany was a lover of 
strong men and good horses, and himself a well-built 

* Successive Sovereigns of Denmark and Norway made, till the 

eighteenth century, efforts to obtain the restoration of the islands, 

whose inhabitants remained for centuries Norse in feeling and 



man, the possessor of large eyes and " a very awful 
countenance," which struck terror into his enemies. 
Mar was tall and handsome, an archer, a hunter, and a 
horse-breeder. Both brothers hated the King's low-born 
friends, who persuaded James that he was unsafe while 
Albany and Mar were at large. In 1479 both were 
arrested : Mar died a prisoner at Craigmillar, and Albany 
escaped from Edinburgh Castle, and took refuge in 
France. If the King had remained at peace with Eng- 
land, aU might have gone well. But in 1480, under 
pressure from France, James sanctioned a border raid 
by the Earl of Angus, the head of the Eed Douglases, 
who had risen on the ruins of the Black. Edw^ard 
decLLned to accept an apology, sent a fleet in 1481 to the 
Fh'th of Forth, and continued hostihties, even when, in 
response to a Papal injunction, an agreement had been 
made to refrain from active warfare. The Lord of the 
Isles was no longer a possible ally, but Edward again 
made use of the fugitive Earl of Douglas, and, in 1482, 
made a treaty with Albany as " Alexander, King of 
Scotland." Albany was to conquer Scotland with Eng- 
lish aid, and to rule as a vassal-King. Along with Richard, 
Duke of Gloucester, he marched to Berwick, where 
Gloucester captured first the tovm and then the castle. 

One of the best-lmown stories of Scottish history 
belongs to this date. James was at Lauder, at the head 
of an army prepared to resist the invaders, and he was 
accompanied by his unpopular favourites, the chief of 
whom was the architect, Cochrane, who had been made 
Earl of Mar. The Earl of Angus (Archibald BeU-the- 
Cat) and others of the nobihty, foUowed with a larger 
force, and they demanded the surrender of Cochrane and 
his friends. James refused ; the favourites were seized 
and hanged on Lauder Bridge, and the King was sent to 
Edinburgh as a prisoner. An agreement was made with 



Albany, who returned to his allegiance. He soon quar- 
relled with the nobles who held the King in ward, and 
JameS; by the help of his brother and the citizens of 
Edinburgh, escaped from the castle. Albany was re- 
warded with new titles, and was made Lieut^nant'- 
General of the kincrdom. but the reconcihation was only 
temporary. James again became suspicions : Albany 
again intrigued ^vith England. When the rupture be- 
came definite, in the spring of 1483, Edward IV. was dead, 
and Eichard of Gloucester was too fully occupied in 
London to espouse Albany's cause. Along with the 
Earl of Douglas, Albany made an attempt on Scotland, 
and was defeated at Lochmaben in July. Douglas was 
captured, and died as a prisoner in 1488 ; Albany fled to 
Erance, where he was accidentally killed in 1485. For 
the rest of his reign James remained on friendly terms 
with Richard III. and with Henry Vll. 

The death of James III., like the seizure of Cochrane 
at Lauder Bridge, is familiar m the romantic story of 
Pitscottie. Cntaught by adversity, he contmued his 
association with impopular favourites, and he treated 
his great nobles arbitrarily and imjustly. In 1488 the 
southern nobles conspked against him. and captured his 
heir, James, Duke of Rothesay. The northern nobihty 
intervened on the King's behaK. but an attempt at com- 
promise failed, and on Jime 11, 1488, James and his 
supporters met the confederate nobles at Sauchiebum. 
The King was defeated, and fled from the field. He was 
slain on the night of the battle, and Pitscottie's* narra- 
tive supphes details not necessarily false because they 
are picturesque. James, he says, feU off his horse at the 
door of the mill at Bannockburn. and was rescued by 
the miUer and his wife, who were ignorant of his identity. 
The King, recovering from unconsciousness, asked for a 

♦ Eobert Lindsay, of Pitscottie, born about 1500, died about 1565. 



priest to hear his confession ; and when his host inquired 
who he was, he repHed : " I was your King this day at 
morn." The woman ran to the door, and cried : "A 
priest for the King !" A man who professed to be a 
priest came, and asked the King if he had smj hope of 
recovery. James thought he might recover, but asked 
for the Sacraments. " The priest answered : ' That shall 
I do heartily," and puUed out a hanger, and gave him 
four or five strokes even to the heart." 

The reign of James IV. is the Golden Age of medieval 
Scottish history. It began and ended with warfare, but 
it included a decade of peaceful development, and it was 
a time of strong and firm government and of great com- 
mercial progress. The young King soon humbled rebel- 
lious Barons who, either as partisans of his father or for 
other reasons, resisted his authority ; he suppressed one 
rebellion raised against the aged John of the Isles by 
members of his own family, and another in which John 
was suspected of complicity ; and he compelled John 
to surrender his Lordship of the Isles in 1493, and 
annexed the title to the Crown. A few years later, 
James paid repeated visits to the Hebrides, and attempted 
to destroy the power of the chiefs. His efforts led to 
resistance and rebellions, but James did not rest until he 
had reduced the Islesmen to obedience, and he com- 
mitted the charge of the Southern Hebrides to the Earl 
of Argyll, and that of Inverness, Caithness, Ross, and 
the Northern Hebrides to the Earl of Huntly. From the 
beginning of the sixteenth century the rule of the 
Sovereign of Scotland may be said to have extended to 
the Western Islands, though much remained to be done 
before they were really part of an organized kingdom. 

The peace with England was soon broken. Henry VII. 
and James IV. were alike interested in shipping and 
commerce, and James greatly increased the Scottish 



navy. English and Scottish captains, engaged on pirat- 
ical expeditions, had no scruples in fighting each other, 
even when their countries were nominally at peace, and 
in 1489, Sir Andrew Wood, with two ships, engaged and 
defeated five English vessels in the Firth of Forth. 
Henry sent Stephen Bull with three great warships to 
avenge the honour of the English navy, but Bull and his 
ships, after a running fight from St. Abb's Head to the 
Firth of Tay, were brought in triumph into the harbour 
of Dundee. Henry then made a treacherous arrange- 
ment with the Earl of Angus (a hero somewhat idealized 
in Marmion) for the seizure of James's person, but 
the plot came to nothing, and war did not break out till 
1495, when James, in alliance with the Duchess of Bur- 
gundy and the Emperor Maximilian, supported the cause 
of the pretender, Perkin AYarbeck, received him at his 
Court, and married him to a daughter of the Earl of 
Huntly. Next year he invaded England and ravaged 
the Borders, and after Warbeck left Scotland, in July, 
1497, James attacked Norham Castle, and provoked a 
counter-invasion by the Earl of Surrey. The Peace of 
Aytoun (September, 1497) put an end to the war. 

The great ambition of the Scottish King was to marry 
a Spanish Princess, and Ferdinand and Isabella, in order 
to detach him from Perkin Warbeck, encouraged him to 
hope for a marriage with one of their daughters. They 
had finally to apologize for having miscounted the number 
of their daughters, and to persuade James to marry the 
daughter of their ally, Henry VII. Pedro de Ayala, the 
Spanish Ambassador, who visited Scotland in 1498, sent 
home an interesting account of James and his people. 
He describes James as of middle height, handsome, and 
pious, and he credits him with a knowledge of Latin, 
French, German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Gaelic — 
a statement which contrasts strangely with Buchanan's 



description of him as uneducated. He praises his personal 
courage, but adds that " he is not a good captain, because 
he begins to fight before he has given his orders." Like 
his people, James, he says, loves wars, but he maintains 
domestic peace, and executes the law without respect 
to rich or poor. Ayala'^ mission was not immediately 
successful, for the Scots made another raid in 1498, and 
it was not till 1501 that James decided to accept the 
thrice-offered hand of the Princess Margaret. The treaty 
of marriage was intended to establish a " sincere, true, 
sound and firm peace, friendship, league, and confedera- 
tion to last to all time coming," and it involved a recogni- 
tion (the first since the Treaty of Northampton) of the 
King of Scots as an independent Sovereign. The marriage 
took place at Holyrood in August, 1503, and the poet 
Dunbar, who had visited London and admired the swans 
on the clear waters of the Thames, celebrated it in " The 
Union of the Thistle and the Rose." During the rest of 
the life of Henry VII. peace was preserved, not without 
difficulty, and in spite of continued Border raids. 

In his account of the people of Scotland in the days 
of James IV., the Spanish Ambassador remarks that 
" Scotland has improved so much in his reign that it is 
worth three times more now than formerly." When 
Ayala wrote, J ames had been on the throne for only ten 
years, and the prosperity he witnessed cannot be reason- 
ably ascribed to the work of a decade. Since the return 
of James 1. large portions of the country had been per- 
manently under a strong Government. The Parliaments 
of Scotland, while, for the purposes of high politics, they 
were the tools of the King or the ruling factions of nobles, 
never ceased to attend to the necessities of commerce, 
justice, and police, and, if their legislation shows that 
property sometimes needed protection, it also proves 
that there was something to protect, and this inference 

OF SCOTLAND. Page li2. 

Born 1494, murdered;in his castle of St.'Andrews 1546. 

From the,i)ortrait at 'St. Mary's College, Blairs, Aberdeen. 



is confirmed by a study of the Exchequer Rolls. The 
merchants of Scotland were rich enough to be luxurious, 
and the use of costly silks and furs had to be restricted 
by law under James II. and again under James III. The 
creation of a navy by Bishop Kennedy and James IV. is 
a further token of the wealth of the nation, and the 
records of Scottish commercial relations with the Nether- 
lands indicate that the Scots exported wool, hides, fish, 
cloth, and pearls in quantities large enough to pay for 
luxuries Hke silk and velvet, wine, and jewels. Enghsh 
observers remarked the rich dresses of the Scots, and 
Ayala admired their houses, " aU built of hewn stone, 
and provided with excellent doors, glass windows, and a 
great number of chimneys. AU the furniture that is used 
in Italy, Spain, and France is to be found in their dwell- 
ings. It has not been bought in modern times only, but 
inherited from preceding ages." The munificence of 
Bishop Kennedy, the founder of St. Salvator's College 
at St. Andrews, and of Bishop Elphinstone, who, in 1495, 
founded the University of Aberdeen, is additional proof 
of national wealth, and the list of early benefactors to 
Elphinstone 's foundation shows that for humbler people 
the tenure of property was secure and the conditions of 
life were comfortable. Aberdeen was the third Scottish 
University, for a Bishop of Glasgow had established a 
University in his cathedral town in 1451, and Scotland 
shared fully in the rich intellectual life of the time. The 
fifteenth century produced a long succession of Scottish 
poets, among whom James I., Robert Henryson, Wilham 
Dunbar, and Gavin Douglas are the greatest names. 
John Mair, or Major, wrote a history which contains some- 
thing of the purpose of a statesman, and Hector Boece, 
the first Principal of the University of Aberdeen, and 
Alexander Stewart, the youthful Archbishop of St. An- 
drews, an illegitimate son of James IV., were the friends 




of Erasmus and the patrons of the New Learning. James 
encouraged the invention of printing, which was intro- 
duced into Scotland in 1507; he gave a charter to the 
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and a famous 
Act of one of his early Parliaments ordered that all 
Barons and freeholders should " put their eldest sons and 
heirs to the schools ... to remain at the grammar schools 
till . . . they have perfect Latin . . . and thereafter to 
remain three years at the schools of Arts and Law [i.e. 
the Universities] that they may have knowledge and 
understanding of the laws." 

The glorious reign of James IV., with its promise and 
its fruition, was doomed to come " quick to confusion." 
When Henry VIII. succeeded to the English throne, and 
entered into a league against France, the Anglo -Scottish 
alliance was placed in grave peril. James and Henry 
had other causes of quarrel. There was a dispute about 
jewels left to Queen Margaret by her father. The Borders 
were again disturbed, and sea-fights again broke the 
national peace. James was wilHng to "pardon all the 
damage done to us and our kingdom " if Henry would 
only " maintain the universal concord of the Church." 
He appealed to the Pope, the inspirer of the " Holy 
League " which broke the peace of Europe, and he tried 
to form a counter-league of Scotland, France, and Den- 
mark. France was not in such extreme danger as James 
supposed, but he determined to be its saviour. The 
aged Bishop Elphinstone, a saint and a statesman, tried 
in vain to persuade him of the folly of intervention ; the 
tradition of centuries was behind the King, and the voices 
of the younger Barons were, as ever, for war. In August, 
1513, James led his army "the ill road" across the 
Border. The whole nation — Lowlanders, Highlanders, 
and Islesmen — rallied to his banner, which was raised on 
Flodden Edge. The English, under the Earl of Surrey, 


Showing the route of the English army from Barmoor to Flodden. 



outmanoeuvred him, crossed the Till, cut off the Scottish 
army from Scotland, recrossed, and marched south- 
wards uponFlodden. James was unnecessarily alarmed, 
for he was well-provisioned and Surrey had given a 
formal challenge which compelled him to fight imme- 
diately. The Scottish King abandoned his position of 
vantage on Flodden Edge, and rushed upon the English. 
The enemy had the advantage in archery and in artillery, 
and the Scots were compelled to come at once to close 
quarters. The Scottish right, under Lennox and Argyll, 
was driven back, and the Borderers, who broke through 
the English right, devoted themselves to plunder. The 
battle raged long in the centre, where Surrey and his 
son met James and Crawford and Montrose. In the 
end the Scots formed themselves into a ring of spearmen, 
and the English, with arrows and bills, maintained their 
fierce attack. 

" But yet, though thick the shafts as snow, 
Though charging knights as whirlwinds go^ 
Though bill-men ply the ghastly blow, 

Unbroken was the ring ; 
The stubborn spearmen still made good 
Their dark, impenetrable wood, 
Each stepping where his comrade stood 

The instant that he fell. 
No thought was there of dastard flight ; 
Linked in the serried phalanx tight, 
Groom fought like noble, squire like knight. 

As fearlessly and well ; 
Till utter darkness closed her wing 
O'er their thin host and wounded king." 



Flodden was not less decisive a victory than Bannock- 
burn. The King was slain, and there is scarcely a Scot- 
tish family record but tells of some ancestor who died 
with his King. But, unlike Bannockburn, the Battle of 
Flodden is no turning-point in Scottish history. It did 
not even render impossible an English alliance, for, though 
a desultory warfare continued till 1515, the Queen-Mother 
was an Englishwoman, and she married, in 1514, the Earl 
of Angus, grandson of Archibald Bell-t he-Cat, and a 
traitor like his grandfather. The supporters of the 
French party brought to Scotland a cousin of the late 
King, the Duke of Albany, a son of the Duke who had 
played so prominent a part in the reign of James III. 
Albany was a French nobleman who spoke no language 
but French ; he was " marvellous wilful " and quite un- 
fitted to rule. The failure of English policy in Scotland 
was due not to him, but to Queen Margaret, a true sister 
of Henry VIII. When Albany became Regent, in 1515, 
Margaret and Angus fled to England, where she bore a 
daughter who was to become the mother of the ill-fated 
Darnley. Angus made terms with the Regent, who went 
to France for four years, leaving almost free scope to the 
English faction. Margaret returned to Scotland, quar- 
relled with Angus, announced her intention of divorcing 
him, and was warned by Henry that, alike by the laws 




of God and man, she was bound to stick to her husband. 
Henceforth she set herself to ruin the EngHsh cause. 
She intrigued with her husband's bitterest foe, the Earl 
of Arran, who, as a son of the Princess Mary, sister of 
James III., was, after Albany, heir-presumptive to the 
throne. She sent " tender letters " to France, urging 
the return of Albany, and when he came in 1521 Angus 
had to leave Scotland. Henry was successful in pre- 
venting a marriage with Albany, during whose temporary 
absence Margaret was persuaded to assist an English 
invasion of Scotland, but the English King was not safe 
until Albany finally left Scotland in 1524. Margaret and 
Arran ruled for a short time in the English interest, but 
the return of Angus drove her to a reconciliation with 
Archbishop Beaton, the leader of the French party. 
Angus assumed the Government, and made a truce with 
England, and Margaret, whose marriage was at last an- 
nulled, wedded, in 1526, Henry Lord Methven, her divorce 
from whom gave some trouble ten years later. The 
young King, James V., resented the conduct of Angus, 
and in 1528 brought about his downfall by escaping from 
his tutelage. For some time he was under the influence 
of his mother and her youthful husband, but he was now 
sixteen years of age, and the period of his personal rule 
begins about 1530. 

James stood at the parting of the ways. In 1533, his 
uncle, Henry of England, married Anne Boleyn, and broke 
finally with Rome. In 1535 Henry urged his nephew 
to follow his example, and offered as an inducement to 
Protestantism the hand of the Princess who was after- 
wards to be known as " Bloody Mary." He sug- 
gested that, if James would only obey the Spirit of 
God, he would be enriched by the spoils of the monas- 
teries. James thought the suggestion blasphemous, and 
he was not the man to be tempted in this way. There 



were, indeed, other reasons which might have commended 
a Reformation to the King of Scotland. The Church in 
Scotland stood in great need of reform, in much great-er 
need than did the Church of England. Many of its 
Bishops and clergy were men of evil lives, and they had 
brought religion into neglect and contempt. The Lollard 
protest against Roman authority had survived through- 
out the fifteenth century. In 1471 an Archbishop of 
St. Andrews had been deposed for heres}^ ; in 1494 thirty 
Lollards from Kyle were accused by the Archbishop of 
Glasgow* in the presence of James IV., whose heart was 
" inclined to gentleness." " Wilt thou burn thy bill 
[wTitings] ?" he asked their spokesman, and received the 
reply, " Sir, the Bishop, an [if] ye will." The retort 
amused the young King, and Lollardy continued to thrive 
in Ayrshire. In 1525 the new Lutheran doctrine had 
already gained so much ground in Scotland that the 
Parliament of that year passed an Act that no passenger 
in any ship should bring " any books or works of the 
great heretic Luther " or " rehearse his heresies " in the 
realm, and in 1528, with the burning of Patrick Hamilton 
at St. Andrews, the Scottish Reformation struggle had 

The Kings of Scotland had never been blind to the 
faults of the Church. The first James had warned the 
Benedictines against their besetting sin of indolence, and 
the fifth, himself no Puritan, was well aware of the vices 
of the clergy, and, both in public and in private, insisted 
upon the necessity of reform. But neither his personal 
sympathies nor the circumstances in which he was placed 
were likely to lead him to follow the example of 
Henry VIII. He had good reason for distrusting his 
uncle, and he desired to remain loyal to the ancient 
French alliance. His struggle with Angus and the House 
* Glasgow was made an Archbishopric in 1492. 



of Douglas had embittered his relations with his nobles 
at the beginning of his reign, and, as time went on, he 
rehed on the support of the clergy. His attempt in 1530 
to reduce the Borders to order — in the course of which 
he hanged Johnnie Armstrong — ahenated the Border 
chiefs. In carrying on his father's policy in the Western 
Islands, he quarrelled with, and imprisoned, the Earl of 
Argyll. To incur simultaneously the enmity of the no- 
bihty and the clergy was a piece of unwisdom of which his 
descendant, Charles I., was guilty. James decided "to 
hold by God and Holy Kirk." 

In 1536 James arranged to marry a daughter of the 
Due de Vendome, and visited France for the purpose. 
When he met the lady, he changed his mind, and married 
the Princess Madeleine, daughter of Francis 1. She was 
in bad health, and, two months after he landed with his 
bride at Leith, James was a T\ddower (July, 1537). 
Henry Ylll. had just buried Jane Seymour, and uncle 
and nephew found themselves rivals for the hand of Mary 
of Guise, widow of the Due de Longueville. The lady 
preferred her younger suitor, and James married her in 
the summer of 1538. By two successive French mar- 
riages, James had definitely declined the path marked 
out for him by Henry. He continued his arbitrary 
treatment of the nobihty, and was guided by the advice 
of Cardinal Beaton, who, in 1539, succeeded his uncle 
in the See of St. Andrews. Patrick Hamilton had been 
foUowed to the stake by other mart^TS, and the reek 
[smoke] infected as many as it blew upon." When 
Cardinal Beaton became the King's chief adviser, the 
number of sufferers increased, but it was at no time large, 
and Scotland never knew am-thing like the deluge of blood 
which England was to witness under Mary Tudor. 

Henry Ylll. never lacked the quality of persistence, 
and in spite of the Scottish King's domestic poHcy and - 



his alliance with the Guises, he did not give up hope of 
bending his nephew to his will. He tried to ahenat^ 
James from Beaton., and he made various attempts to 
induce him to consent to a personal meeting. James was 
wise in refusing such a conference, for Henry was scheming 
to kidnap him. The English King could never realize 
the state of mind of a monarch who declined to rob the 
Church, and he returned to this form of spii'itual argu- 
ment. The Scottish Kings, although they possessed large 
tracts of land, were not rich, for, except for customs 
duties and feudal revenues, there was no regular taxation. 
An attempt to introduce subsidies had caused great dis- 
content under James L, and one of the causes of the fall 
of James III. was his debasement of the coinage. When 
James V. proved blind to the providence which put 
money mthin his grasp, and was obdurate in refusing 
to give his uncle a chance of seizing his person, Henry 
revived the ancient claim of homage, formed a plan for 
kidnapping James in his own country, and sent the 
Earl of Angus to invade Scotland. The Earl of Huntly 
defeated an English force at Haddonrig, and the Duke 
of Norfolk ravaged the county of Roxburgh. Francis I. 
had helped to persuade James not to go to York, whither 
Henry had journeyed to meet him in 1541, and the Scot- 
tish nobility had thus an excuse for refusing their King 
the support he demanded. It was, they said, a French 
quarrel. Beaton and the ecclesiastical party furnished 
James with an army, which he led in November to Loch- 
maben, but did not accompany to meet the enemy. The 
Scottish force was enclosed between the Solway Moss and 
the River Esk, and completely routed, and James, a 
stricken man, returned to Falkland. His two sons by 
Mary of Guise had died in the preceding year, and as 
James lay at Falkland on December 8, 1542, "the post 
came out of Linlithgow, showing to the King good tidings 



that the Queen was delivered. The King inquired 
whether it was man or woman. The messenger said it 
was a fair daughter. The King answered and said, 
' Adieu, farewell, it come with a lass, it will pass with 
a lass,' and so he recommended himself to the mercy of 
Almighty God, and spake little then from that time forth, 
but turned his back unto his lords and his face into the 
wall." Six days later, '* he turned him back and looked 
and beheld all his lords about him, and gave a little 
smile and laughter, then kissed his hand and offered the 
same to all his lords round about him, and thereafter held 
up his hands to God and yielded the spirit." 

James V. had the charm and the ability of his race, 
but he did not inherit the energy of his father or of 
James I., and he succumbed to a crisis which they would 
have been capable of meeting. He is best remembered 
by his settlement of the Isles, and by his zeal for justice. 
He was known as the "Commons' King," he was inter- 
ested in his people and their needs, and his love of justice 
as well as his spirit of adventure led him to wander 
incognito among the lower classes of his subjects. The 
judicial arrangements made by James I. had been supple- 
mented by James II. and by James IV., and the Scottish 
judicial system received its permanent form from James V. 
In 1532 he proposed to institute " a college of cunning 
and wise men both of spiritual and temporal estate . . . 
to sit and decide upon all actions civiL" The College 
of Justice was accordingly formed, and it superseded the 
Lords Auditors or Committee of the Estates to which 
judicial powers had been entrusted in the fourteenth 
century, and to which James I. had given a more 
permanent form. The Secret or Privy Council retained 
its old judicial powers, and the Justiciar continued to 
be responsible for criminal jurisdiction until, in 1587, 
James VI. founded the High Court of Justiciary. It was 



in keeping both with the general history of Scottish 
institutions since Bannockburn, and with the poHcy of 
the King who founded it, that the Scottish College of 
Justice followed a French and not an English model. 

The Court of Session was the last gift of France to Scot- 
land. The rapid growth of Protestantism was already 
dooming the French alliance, and the death of James V. 
filled the Reformers with hope, and rallied to their cause 
the greedy Barons, who were prepared to welcome an attack 
on Church property during a royal minority. The folly 
and cruelty of Henry VIII. added a tragic chapter to the 
history of Franco-Scottish relations, but it could not be 
more than an epilogue. Religion had succeeded to na- 
tionaHty as the chief interest of the time, the English 
party were no longer outlawed traitors, but leaders of 
the people ; for the next century and a half, religious 
controversy was to be the strongest force in the making 
of the nation. 

On the death of King J ames, the English King returned 
to his favourite device of kidnapping, and he arranged 
with the prisoners of Solway Moss to seize the persons 
of the Queen-Mother, Cardinal Beaton, and the Earl of 
Arran,* who, in December, 1542, became Regent. The 
prisoners, on their return, proved false to Henry and 
falsely true to Scotland. There was no kidnapping, nor 
any attack upon the Church beyond a memorable Act 
which permitted the circulation of " haly write, baith 
the new testament and the auld in the vulgar toung.'' 
Henry proposed a marriage between his son Edward and 
the little Queen Mary, and the Scots agreed, but com 
pelled Henry to modify his terms so as to secure the 
independence of Scotland. They would trust him with 
no strongholds ; there must be no union of the kingdoms ; 

Son of the Earl of Arran, who was a prominent personage in the 
minority of James V. 



and, should there be no child of the marriage, the natural 
heirs were to succeed to the Scottish throne. Henry was 
not satisfied with the terms, and it was soon evident that 
the two countries were drifting into war. Arran, dis- 
trusting Henry, made an alliance with Cardinal Beaton 
and the Queen-Mother, and when, in the end of 1543, the 
English attacked some Scottish ships, the Regent declared 
the treaty annulled. The Earl of Hertford was sent to 
Scotland by sea, with instructions to lay on and spare 
not, " putting man, woman, and child to fire and sword 
without exception where any resistance shall be made 
against you." In 1544 he took Leith, burned Edinburgh, 
and ravaged the Lothians. There was, as usual, a Scot- 
tish traitor, the Earl of Lennox, who, like Arran, was 
descended from a sister of James III., and stood after 
the famil}^ of Arran in the succession to the throne. Fail- 
ing to betray the Castle of Dumbarton to the English, 
he fled to London, where he married Henry's niece, the 
daughter of Margaret and Angus. The Douglases were 
also engaged in an intrigue with Henr}^ but fortune did 
not favour them, and when the EngHsh desecrated the 
sepulchre of the Douglas family at Melrose, they joined 
the Regent, and, in Februarj^ 1545, defeated an English 
force at Ancrum Moor. Later in the year, when Hert- 
ford made his second invasion, the Douglases reverted 
to their wonted attitude of treachery. 

The " Enghsh Wooing " had put Henry's marriage 
scheme out of the question, but the poHcy of the Regent 
was gravely hampered by the religious quarrel which was 
dividing the kingdom. Cardinal Beaton, to whose skill 
and patriotism the national cause had owed much in the 
crisis which followed the King's death, now put his work 
in jeopardy by enforcing the heresy laws, which had been 
re-enacted in 1543. On March 1, 1546, George Wishart 
was hanged and his body was burned outside the episcopal 



Castle of St. Andrews. On May 29, the Protestants took 
their revenge by seizing the castle and murdering the 
Cardinal. Their deed had the approval of John Knox, 
though there is no evidence to connect him with the 
plot ; he joined the garrison ten months later, was present 
when the Regent retook the castle, with French help, 
in July, 1547, and with the rest of the defenders, was sent 
to France as a galley-slave. The death of Henry VIII. 
in January of the same year had placed the Earl of 
Hertford (Protector Somerset) in power in England. If 
Somerset had been the ruler of England at the death of 
James V., the course of events might have been different ; 
but the last five years had rendered impossible a union 
with England, however wisely conceived. The Scots 
would not ally with England, and Somerset was deter- 
mined to prevent them from allying with France. His 
efforts were fruitless, though he gained some mihtary 
reputation by his third invasion of Scotland in the summer 
of 1547, and by his decisive victory at Pinkie in Septem- 
ber, memorable as the last battle between Scots and 
English. His invasion and his victory were marked by 
the usual barbarous ferocity, and when he left the country 
the Regent at once entered into negotiations for a mar- 
riage treaty between Queen Mary and the Dauphin, the 
eldest son of Henry II. and Catherine de Medici. In 
August, 1548, the child was sent to France, which she 
reached in safety, in spite of English efforts to capture her 
vessel. The Scots, with French assistance, persevered 
in the recovery of strongholds which had been seized by 
the English, and they were included in the peace of 1550 
between France and England. 

Scots and French never agreed, and when Mary of Guise 
succeeded Arran as Regent in 1554, her nationality and 
her religion combined to render her task impossible. The 
accession of Mary Tudor to the English throne deprived 



the Scottish Protestants of EngHsh assistance, but the 
return of Knox to Scotland in 1555 gave the Regent a 
more redoubtable opponent than any monarch of Eng- 
land. The circulation of the Bible, encouraged by the 
Enghsh invaders, who are said to have brought cartloads 
of Bibles to Scotland, had greatly increased the adherents 
of the Reformed Faith, and when Knox became their 
leader, the Protestants felt the inspiration of a great and 
noble personahty. " The voice of one man," wrote an 
English Ambassador some years later, " is able in one hour 
to put more life in us than five hundred trumpets con- 
tinually blustering." In 1557 the Protestant party formed 
themselves into " the Congregation of the Lord " and 
signed a National Covenant, or band for the destruction 
of the Synagogue of Satan, as they termed Roman 
Catholicism. The marriage of ^lary to the Dauphin in 
1558, the acceptance of her French husband as King 
Francis of Scotland, the suspicion (not unfounded) of a 
danger to Scottish independence from the agreements 
signed by the girl- Queen on her marriage — all combined 
to inspire the mihtant forces of Protestantism. The 
death of Mary Tudor and the succession of EHzabeth gave 
the Protestant party some promise of EngHsh help. The 
Queen-Regent, whose gracious tolerance had hitherto 
preserved the peace, denounced the leaders of the Re- 
formers as heretics, and their reply came in the sermons 
which inspired the destruction of the religious houses 
which were the glory of the Fair City of Perth. Alarmed 
by the outbreak, Mary of Guise promised to take no 
vengeance, and to send no French garrison. She kept 
her word, and garrisoned Perth with Scottish soldiers, but 
so vehement was the dislike of the French that her arrival 
at Perth with a French bodyguard in attendance on her 
person was represented as a breach of her promise, and 
her opponents did not fail to use the advantage thus 



gained. The destruction of reKgious buildings continued, 
and, while negotiations were in progress both between 
the rebels and the Regent and between the rebels and 
Ehzabeth. Francis and Mary succeeded to the throne 
of France. If anything was to be done, it must therefore 
be done at once, and, in October, 1559, the Scottish 
Protestants announced the deposition of the Regent. 
With the help of an Enghsh fleet, they besieged Leith, 
while the Queen-Mother took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. 
The attack on Leith met with httle success, but Mary of 
Guise was stricken with a mortal illness, and a truce was 
made. Both sides were to dismiss their foreign allies, 
and the Enghsh agreed to go. on condition that Francis 
and Mary should renounce Mary's claim to the Crown of 
England, which Henry H. had advanced at the time of 
Ehzabeth's accession. On June 11, 1560. the Queen- 
Mother died, reconciled to her rebel lords, and beseeching 
them, above aU else, to remember the honour of their 

The Government was now ia the hands of the Lords of 
the Congregation. In August they summoned a Parlia- 
ment, in which the smaUer Barons asserted their right 
to be present. It was admitted, and the strength of the 
Protestant party was greatly increased. The Protestant 
prearchers invited the Estates to establish the Reformed 
Faith, and were instructed to produce a summary of the 
doctriae which they regarded as *" wholesome and true." 
Within four days Knox and his colleagues presented the 
Confession of Faith, which governed the Chiu'ch of 
Scotland for nearly a century. It was received and 
accepted; and saying or hearing Mass was forbidden 
under severe penalties : confiscation and imprisonment 
for the first o5ence. exile for the second, and death for 
the third. In point of faet. the extreme penalty was 
inflicted only once, when the bitterness of rehgious feeHng 


Married 1538, died in Edinburgh Castle 15G0. 

From the painting in the possession of the Coriioration of Edinburgh. 


had been increased by the news of the massacre of 
St. Bartholomew ; but the cruel, repressive measures 
directed against Ro^j^an Catholics for two centuries 
are a dark stain on history of ^.'rot ."^uant Scot- 

The Parliament of 1560, though its Acts never received 
royal sanction, was a turning-point in Scottish history, 
and it is important to realize what had actually happened. 
A Parliament, illegally summoned, had changed the 
religion of the country, and had substituted one series 
of dogmas for another. Of Hberty or toleration no one 
thought. Knox found one Mass less tolerable than " if 
ten thousand armed enemies were landed in any part of 
the realm of purpose to suppress the whole religion." 
His account of the murder of Beaton was written 
"merrily," and he had as little hesitation in declaring 
that the " idolater " should die the death as his opponents 
had in condemning a heretic to the stake. The individual 
conscience, released from the laws of the Pope, was 
henceforth to be bound by the laws of the realm, and 
Papal jurisdiction was to be succeeded by the not less 
formidable courts of the Reformed Church. The new 
clergy made claims as dangerous to civil and religious 
Hberty as the old. They believed themselves to possess 
the power of loosing and of binding. They excom- 
municated with the sentence, " And this his sin we bind, 
and pronounce the same to be bound in heaven and earth," 
and they gave over the sinner " in the hands and power 
of the devil," threatening with a similar penalty " all 
such men as before his repentance shall haunt or familiarly 
accompany him." The Parliament, long a tool in the 
hands of the King, was soon to become a tool in the 
hands of the Church, and the General Assembly of the 
Church soon came to exercise the influence which ought 
to have belonged to the Parliament. The principles and 




aspirations which might have given life to the Estates 
found a more suitable home in the meetings of ministers 
and laymen, who formed the Courts of the Church. It 
was the General Assembly that rendered possible the 
existence of public opinion in Scotland, and it must not 
be forgotten that the public opinion of Scotland was, on 
the whole, with the Assembly, and that the cast-iron 
formulas which the ministers sought to enforce repre- 
sented the results which a majority of the people had 
freely accepted. 

There was, of course, a minority which must suffer. 
"We will believe as our fathers believed," a few of the 
Lords Temporal had told the Parliament which refused 
to allow them to retain their faith. In that minority 
was the Queen. Francis II. died in December, 1560, 
and his widow, never on good terms with her mother-in- 
law, Catherine de Medici, soon decided to return to 
Scotland. She had not confirmed the Treaty of Edin- 
burgh, in which were embodied the terms of the truce 
with England, made at the time of her mother's death, 
and Elizabeth threatened to capture her on her voyage. 
Mary was fully conscious of the difficulty of the task 
before her, and she told Elizabeth's Ambassador that if 
she should fall into EHzabeth's hands, " she may then 
do her pleasure and make sacrifice of me. Peradventure 
that casualty might be better for me than to live." In 
a thick mist in the early morning of August 19, 1561, 
Mary landed in safety at Leith. On the following 
Sunday her chaplain was threatened with death, and 
Knox afterwards regretted that he did not have the 
courage, as he had the power, to " put in execution God's 
judgments," and to do what in him lay " to have sup- 
pressed that idol in the beginning." 

Before Mary's arrival, her throne had been in some 
jeopardy, for the Lords of the Congregation had suggested 



that Elizabeth should marry the Earl of Arran,* and 
reign over the two countries. Elizabeth did not wish to 
marry an imbecile ; she knew that Knox and the Con- 
gregation would make worse subjects than allies, and she 

From the portrait in Beza'3 Icones. 

had no desire to provoke an immediate rupture with 
Spain. To seize the Scottish throne would have only 
created new difficulties for her. The marriage of Mary 

* Son of the ex-Eegent. His father used the French title of Duke 
of Chatelherault which had been conferred on him by Henry II. 



to a member of the Austro-Spanish House would have 
been much more dangerous to the EngHsh Queen than 
the marriage with Francis II. ever was, and it was 
against this danger that she was chiefly concerned to 
provide. Mary's position, as heir-presumptive to the 
throne of England, afforded the best argument for 
maintaining peace with her English cousin. " I am 
younger than your mistress," was one of her remarks, 
made to Elizabeth's agents in France, and duly 
repeated to irritate the English Queen. She was not 
quite ten years younger, but she counted confidently on 
the succession, and made it the guiding line of her foreign 
policy. Elizabeth knew that she would not make a 
Spanish marriage, and she was content to wait and to 
work for Mary's doAvnfall in Scotland. 

At one period in her reign Mary may have dreamed of 
the restoration of Roman CathoHcism, but of this there 
was never any real chance. The Scottish nobles had been 
seizing the Church lands, and most of them were the 
paid servants of Elizabeth. They had no intention of 
losing either their lands or their pensions ; yielding to 
the clergy on all points of doctrine, they had proved 
obdurate to any appeal to share with the new Church the 
spoils of the old, and they were not likely to grant to 
Mary Stewart what they had denied to John Knox. At 
the beginning of her reign the Queen had no alternative 
but to rely on the advice of the Protestant Lords, the 
leader of whom was her illegitimate brother, the Lord 
James Stewart, whom she made Earl of Murray. He was 
clever enough to obtain Mary's acquiescence in the 
suppression of the most powerful Catholic noble in 
Scotland, the Earl of Huntly. The forfeiture of Huntly 
greatly weakened the Catholic party, and Elizabeth 
seized the opportunity of spreading a rumour in Spain 
that the Scottish Queen was " no more devout towards 



Rome than for the contentation of her uncles." Those 
uncles, immersed in the wars of religion in France, could 
give her no help, and Mary came to depend more and 
more on Murray and the Protestants. Tempted by a 
suggestion of recognition as the heiress of England, she 
promised to take Elizabeth's advice about her marriage. 
The English Queen adopted her favourite device of 
procrastination, made suggestions and withdrew them, 
and insulted her high-spirited cousin by proposing that 
she should marry her own favourite, Leicester. The 
" new-made Earl " apologized for his presumption, and 
Elizabeth had certainly no intention of letting him go 
to Scotland, but she encouraged the Earl of Lennox (the 
traitor of Mary's minority) to return with his son. Lord 
Darnley, a handsome youth, who stood near the suc- 
cession to the Crowns of both countries. 

On July 29, 1565, Mary was married to Darnley. 
Elizabeth chose to take offence, and Murray raised a 
rebellion. The people rallied to the Queen, and her 
half-brother fled to England, to be scolded and protected 
by EHzabeth, who was an accomplice in his rising, and 
who soon wrote to Mary in his behalf. His return was 
to be brought about by other means. Darnley proved 
to be a vicious fool, possessed of a fool's ambition, and 
Mary dechned to gratify him by conferring on him the 
Crown Matrimonial which would have placed him in a 
stronger position than that of a King-Consort, for in the 
event of Mary's death the Crown would have passed to 
Darnley and his heirs. The Queen's confidential secre- 
tary, an Italian named David Rizzio, was known to have 
advised her to refuse the Crown Matrimonial, though he 
had originally favoured the Darnley marriage. Darnley 
decided to murder Rizzio, and for this purpose entered 
into a conspiracy with Murray and his friends. Mary 
was to be imprisoned, Darnley was to reign, Murray was 



to return. The measure of Darnley's folly is his delusion 
that the men who hated and despised him, who had taken 
up arms against him, and who professed to regard his 
marriage with the Queen as a grave danger to their 
religion, would ever permit him to govern Scotland. 
The measure of his selfish brutality may be found in the 
details of the plot. Rizzio, who could easily have been 
dealt with elsewhere, was murdered in the presence of 
Mary, then far advanced in pregnancy. The ghastly 
story, with all its dramatic detail, is too familiar to 
require repetition, but it is important to remember that, 
though Rizzio was slain, the plot failed. Murray appeared 
at Holyrood the morning after the murder, and received 
the forgiveness of his sister, who was credulous enough 
to believe that his presence would have been a protection 
to her. Two of the aims of the conspirators had been 
fulfilled, but they were balked in their main purpose, 
the imprisonment of Mary. The Queen had an inter- 
view with Darnley, persuaded him that he had nothing 
to expect from his accomplices, and on the night of 
March 11, 1566, forty-eight hours after the murder, 
husband and wife crept stealthily through the Chapel of 
Holyrood, effected their escape, and fled to Dunbar. 
Mary had a second time triumphed. 

Darnley disavowed his share in the conspiracy, and 
demanded the punishment of the murderers, who fled to 
England. Elizabeth, who had known of the plot, sent 
them money, and told Mary falsehoods, which she prob- 
ably did not expect to be believed. If Mary could have 
kept her hold over Darnley, the safety of the Reformed 
Church might yet have been imperilled, but the birth of 
their son James, in June, brought about only a partial 
reconciliation between his unhappy parents. Darnley's 
shameful treatment of his wife led the nobles, in Novem- 
ber, 1566, to propose to Mary that she should obtain a 


divorce. The Queen feared that a divorce might preju- 
dice the rights of her son, and her Secretary, Maitland of 
Lethington, told her that the nobles would " find the 
means that your Majesty shall be quit of him." Darnley 
had a blood-feud with men who did not forgive, and his 
end was assured. The accomplices whom he had be- 
trayed and whom his treachery had sent into exile would 
not fail to take vengeance. In the end of the year they 
were permitted to return, and Darnley 's death was not 
likely to be long delayed. 

The Earl of Morton, one of the exiles, had a meeting, 
immediately after his return, with the Earl of Bothwell, 
who suggested to him the murder of Darnley, and told 
him that he had the Queen's approval. The enemies of 
Darnley were also the enemies of Mary, and they had 
found an easy tool for the destruction of both. Alarmed 
by the return of the Rizzio murderers, Darnley had 
taken refuge with his father. He fell ill ; Mary went to 
him at Glasgow, nursed him, and brought him back, not 
to Holyrood, but to Kirk of Field, a house on the out- 
skirts of Edinburgh. On the night of February 10, 1567, 
the miserable boy, not yet twenty-one years of age, was 
strangled, and his murderers, by blowing up the house 
with gunpowder, made certain that the world should be 
deceived by no story told to explain his death. Both- 
well was generally believed to be guilty of the crime ; he 
was tried and acquitted, and a Parliament set its seal 
upon his acquittal. Morton and others of the nobility 
signed a bond recommending his marriage with the 
Queen, and, on April 24, as she was travelling from 
Linlithgow to Edinburgh, he seized her person. On 
May 15 the Queen married Bothwell with Protestant 

A rebellion at once broke out, the third in less than 
two years, and this time Mary succumbed. The rebels 



professed to take up arms to deliver the Queen from the 
thraldom of Both well, but when, on June 15, she 
separated from Bothwell, and surrendered on Carberry 
Hill, they treated her as a prisoner, and accused her of 
murdering her husband. Her marriage with Bothwell 
was generally regarded at the time, and has frequently 
been described by historians, as a sufficiently convincing 
proof of her guilt. More positive evidence was produced 
in the famous Casket Letters, alleged to have been written 
by Mary to Bothwell. A vigorous controversy has been 
waged for generations over the authenticity of the Casket 
Letters, and its most recent developments have seriously 
weakened the argimients for a theory of forgery ; but 
the guilt or innocence of the Queen is a matter rather for 
the biographer than for the historian. Even if there 
was a domestic conspiracy between Mary and Bothwell, 
it remains true that Darnley's death was not the result 
of such a conspiracy alone. Guilty or innocent, Mary 
was ruined by a successful plot, in which a large number 
of her nobility were concerned. If she was guilty, she 
was unconsciously acting as their tool. When Bothwell 
had fled from Scotland to die in a Danish prison, and the 
discroTVTied Queen was enduring her long-drawn agony 
in England, the nobles quarrelled among themselves, and 
hurled at each other accusations of participation in the 
murder of Darnley. 

Mary was taken to Lochleven Castle, whose Douglas 
owners might be expected to prove trusty gaolers of a 
Stewart Queen. She was compelled to sign a deed of 
abdication, and to nominate Murray as Regent for 
her little son. Murray had been out of Scotland since 
April ; he returned in August, and visited his sister in 
her prison, for the purpose of threatening her with a 
death that he dared not inflict. Elizabeth, who disliked 
the deposition of Princes, had told her pensioners that 



the Queen's life must be safe. On May 2, 1568, Mary, 
who had inspired loyalty in a youth of the Douglas name, 
escaped from Lochleven. An army, composed largely 
of Protestants, gathered round her standard, and marched 
towards Dumbarton Castle, where they hoped to place 
their Queen in safety. At Langside they were met by 
Murray and totally defeated. Mary, trusting to assur- 
ances of help which EHzabeth had sent her at Lochleven, 
resolved, against the advice of her friends, to throw 
herself on her cousin's mercy, and on May 16, her little 
boat crossed the Solway. 

EHzabeth declined to see her guest until she had 
cleared herself from the suspicion of Darnley's murder, 
and Mary consented to prosecute her rebels before an 
English Commission, and so to give them the opportunity 
of supporting their accusations against her. The Com- 
mission had a tortuous history, and it ended in 1568, 
with a self -contradictory decision. Nothing, said the 
English Queen, had been adduced against Murray and 
his adherents that might impair their honour or allegi- 
ance, but, on the other hand, they had shown nothing 
against their Sovereign " whereby the Queen of England 
should conceive or take any evil opinion of the Queen, 
her good sister." The Earl of Murray returned to 
Scotland with an increased allowance of English gold, 
and Mary was subjected to a cruel and rigorous im- 
prisonment, which broke her health and went near to 
breaking her spirit. Henceforward, if the rulers of 
Scotland disregarded Elizabeth's wishes, she could 
always threaten to release her prisoner, and once or 
twice Mary dared to hope that she would do so. While 
the English Queen thus gained security in her Scottish 
policy, she paid the penalty at home in a series of re- 
bellions and conspiracies, and in the loss of the loyalty of 
most of her Roman Catholic subjects. 



In Scotland there was still a " Queen's party," which 
gave trouble to Murray and his successors in the regency. 
A Convention, summoned while Mary was at Lochleven, 
confirmed the Acts of the Parliament of 1560, but Mary's 
escape and flight to England soon diverted Murray's 
attention. When, early in 1569, he returned from the 
Conference which discussed Mary's guilt, he had to march 
with a strong force through the North of Scotland to 
suppress the Marian party in the Huntly country, and he 
had also to expel " Border thieves " from their homes. 
On January 22, 1570, as he was passing through Linlith- 
gow on his way to reduce the iMarian stronghold of 
Dumbarton, he was murdered by one of his great enemies, 
the Hamiltons. If Murray had been the legitimate 
successor of James V, he would probably have been one 
of Scotland's greatest Kings. His character, both in its 
strength and in its meanness, resembles that of a possessor 
of Stewart blood a hundred years later, William of Orange. 
The memory of his statesmanship has given him, not un- 
deservedly, the title of the " Good Regent." He was 
succeeded by the Earl of Lennox, the father of the 
murdered Darnley, who found that Murray's death had 
greatly strengthened the Queen's party. Edinburgh 
Castle was now held for the Queen by Maitland of Lething- 
ton, and Kirkaldy of Grange, two recruits from " the 
King's party," and Huntly raised Mary's standard in 
the North. But Lennox and Morton, with EngHsh help, 
had the best of the fighting, and in April, 1571, they 
recovered Dumbarton Castle, and hanged as an accom- 
plice in Darnley' s murder. Archbishop Hamilton, who 
had been the unworthy leader of a belated movement for 
the internal reform of the Roman Church in Scotland. 
His death induced the historian of the King's party, 
George Buchanan, to invent a novel account of Darnley's 
murder, in which the name of Bothwell is not mentioned. 



In the early summer of 1571 the City of Edinburgh 
witnessed a series of combats between the King's party 
and the garrison of the castle, and, in September, Grange 
and Lethington sent an expedition, under Huntly, to 
Stirling, where the enemy were holding a Parliament. 
They were successful in capturing the Regent and several 
other nobles, but the Earl of Mar made a sally from the 
castle and effected a rescue. Lennox was killed in the 
fighting, and was succeeded by the Earl of Mar, who 


From a map engraved in 1575. 

spent an unhappy year as Regent of a troubled kingdom. 
The Queen's party gained some of the ground they had 
lost in Aberdeenshire, and made good their defence of 
Edinburgh Castle. Mar died in October, 1572, and the 
new Regent was the Earl of Morton. 

Morton was the most shameless and the most greedy 
of the nobles of this wicked age, but he was able as well 
as unscrupulous, and he succeeded in bringing the whole 
country under his rule. Edinburgh Castle fell in June, 
1573, and, with its fall, the civil war came to an end. 



His merciless government brought something like peace 
and order into the Border country. " His five years," 
wrote a contemporary, " were esteemed to be as happy 
and peaceable as ever Scotland saw. The name of a 
Papist durst not be heard of, there was no thief nor 
oppressor that durst show himself." Morton, like 
Murray, had done much for the security of Protestantism, 
but he was no friend to the Church. " He could not 
suffer Christ to reign freely," it was complained, and this 
sentence gives the keynote to Scottish history for a 
century. The Parliaments of 1 560 and 1567 had abolished 
Episcopacy without calling attention to the fact. There 
was no provision for the episcopal office in the new 
discipline, and from 1560-1572 the only Bishops in 
Scotland were the survivors of the Roman prelates. 
Morton did not love Bishops, but he loved their revenues, 
and, in 1572, during the regency of Mar, he succeeded in 
reviving the titles of Archbishop, Bishop, Abbot, and 
Prior. The bearers of these names were to have neither 
consecration nor special authority ; they were to draw 
the revenues of the lands of bishopric or abbey and to 
hand over the greater portion of them to a lay patron, 
and they were popularly described as " Tulchan Bishops," 
a tulchan being a calf's skin filled with straw to induce 
a cow to give milk. An arrangement made in 1561, by 
which the new clergy and the Crown were to share one- 
third of the revenue of the old Church, had not been 
carried out, and Morton, on succeeding to the regency, 
made himself the nominal protector of the clergy. He 
acted on the economical principle of " four kirks to a 
minister," and when a St. Andrews professor denounced 
his robbery of the Church he banished him from Scotland. 
In the month in which Morton became Regent the 
Church lost its greatest personality by the death of John 
Knox (October 24, 1572). " Nane I half corrupted, nane 


I haif defrauded, merchandise haif I not maid," he said ; 
no acre of Scottish soil had fallen to him, no loot of 
cathedral or abbey had ever stained his hands. In his 
last months he denounced the simony by which Morton 
appointed a Douglas to the titular See of St. Andrews, 
retaining the greater portion of its revenues. Knox had 
been, of necessity, more of a fighter than an organizer, 
but in the Book of Common Order, variously known as 
the Psalm-Booh and Knox's Liturgy he had pro- 
vided the model for the services of the Church. Under 
his guidance the General Assembly had met once or 
twice a year, and, except in pecuniary matters, it had 
exercised a profound influence upon politics. The civil 
war which followed Mary's flight had rendered the 
Church entirely dependent upon the nobility, and Morton 
made it clear that he intended to govern the Church as 
well as the kingdom. One of the ecclesiastical grievances 
against the Regent shows how far the Church was pre- 
pared to go in claiming judicial powers. An Edinburgh 
elder had broken the law of the country by selling wheat 
out of Scotland, and the Church ordered him to do 
penance. " I have given him licence," said Morton, " and 
it appertaineth not to you to judge of that matter." 

The Church found a new leader in Andrew Melville, a 
Scottish scholar, who had studied in Paris under Pierre 
de la Ramee (Petrus Ramus) and had taught at Geneva. 
He became Principal of the University of Glasgow in 
1574, and was transferred to St. Andrews in 1580 ; he 
brought the New Learning into these Universities, and to 
some extent into the University of Aberdeen, and when 
the University of Edinburgh was founded in 1584 and 
Marischal College at Aberdeen in 1593, the constitutions 
of these new seats of learning were in accordance with 
Melville's views. As an educational reformer he banished 
the medieval curriculum from the Universities and intro- 



duced the study of languages and theology. As an 
ecclesiastical reformer, Melville was the founder of 
Scottish Presbyterianism. Immediately on his return 
to Scotland, he raised a question which had not been 
discussed in 1560 — whether there was any Scriptural 
sanction for the office of Bishop in the Christian Church. 
The General Assembly of 1575 resolved that " the name 
Bishop is common to every pastor," and ordered a 
re-consideration of the polity of the Church. The result 
of the reconsideration was the Second Book of Discipline 
of 1581. The First Book, sanctioned by the Church in 
1560, had never received Parliamentary confirmation, 
and its successor has a somewhat similar history. The 
Second Book differed from the First chiefly in its definite 
repudiation of the episcopal office and its insistence on 
the essential parity or equality of all ministers, and in its 
emphatic assertion that ecclesiastical authority, " the 
Power of the Keys," is different and distinct from the Civil 
Power, and comes immediately from God, "not having a 
temporal Head on the Earth, but only Christ, the only 
spiritual King and governor of his kirk." This theory 
of the spiritual independence of the Church was, under 
Melville's influence, carried to such extremes that the 
ministers claimed to be responsible for what they said in 
the pulpit, to the courts of the Church and to them alone. 
While religion was the politics of the day, it is evident 
that no civil government could have admitted such a 
claim. In the year in which the Second Book of Dis- 
cipline was approved by the Assembly, the efficiency of 
the Church as a political (as well as a spiritual) organiza- 
tion was greatly increased by the introduction of the 
hierarchy of Church Courts, which is the characteristic 
of Presbyterian order. The parochial assembly or Kirk 
Session, the classical* assembly or Presbytery, the 
* The assembly of a classis or division. 



provincial assembly or Synod, and the national or 
General Assembly soon came to exercise a profound 
influence over the whole of the Lowlands of Scotland, 
and gave the leaders of the Church a valuable weapon 
in their struggle with the civil power. 

While the Church was developing its Hildebrandine 
claims, the series of revolutions which marked James's 
rule as King of Scotland had begun. In 1578, Morton was 
driven from the regency, and James VI. became, at the 
age of twelve, nominally responsible for the Government. 
Morton temporarily recovered his power, and brought 
about the forfeiture of the House of Hamilton, but James 
soon fell under the influence of his father's cousin, Esme 
Stewart, a French nobleman, who, as Duke of Lennox, 
was the chief Minister from 1580-1582. Morton was 
accused of being " art and part " in the murder of 
Darnley, and was executed in June, 1581, in spite of 
Elizabeth's attempts to save him. Lennox was a Roman 
Catholic, and his ascendancy produced an anti-Popery 
scare, which he tried to calm by a conversion to Protes- 
tantism and a submission to the Church, and by a 
National Covenant. By the Confession of Faith of 1581 
King and people recorded their detestation of " the 
usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist." In 
contrast to the Positive Confession of 1560, the protest 
of 1581 was known as the Negative Confession. Among 
the enormities of the Pope the new Confession included 
" his manifold orders," but made no further reference to 
the question which was already dividing King and people. 
James, under the influence of Lennox, and probably as a 
reaction from the teaching of George Buchanan, had 
already indicated his desire for episcopacy and absolute 
government, but the widespread unrest, caused by the 
Catholic intrigues of the time, brought about a revolution, 
which deprived him for a year of any influence in the State. 



In August, 1582, while James was hunting in Perth- 
shire he was seized by a number of nobles and brought 
to Ruthven Castle, the stronghold of the Earl of Gowrie, 
where, in answer to his tears, he was told " Better bairns 
greet than bearded men." The Raid of Ruthven meant 
the downfall of Lennox, who had to flee from Scotland. 
The clergy were overjoyed, the Assembly of 1582 gave 
its formal approval to the Raid, and the King's new 
advisers eagerly welcomed the alliance of the Church. 
But next year James escaped, and took as his adviser 
one of the Stewarts of Ochiltree (a brother-in-law of 
John Knox), who had been an ally of Lennox and had 
been created Earl of Arran. James crushed the leaders 
of the Raid of Ruthven, and entered into a desperate 
intrigue with the Duke of Guise against Elizabeth, and 
even wrote to the Pope to ask his assistance, and to 
suggest the possibility of his own conversion to Rome. 
The succession to the English throne was always the 
King's first concern, but on more than one occasion he 
was foolish enough to enter into plots which aimed at an 
immediate possession of Elizabeth's Crown, and which 
might easily have destroyed all chance of realizing his 
ambition. In 1584 he put Gowrie to death, and took his 
vengeance on the Church in the series of " Black Acts," 
which asserted the royal headship over the Church, and 
the right of the King to appoint Bishops and to decide 
when Assemblies should meet, and which prohibited the 
ministers from preaching on political topics under the 
penalty of treason. An affair on the Borders gave 
Elizabeth the opportunity of bringing about the fall of 
Arran, and James, now convinced that his best course 
was to remain on good terms with the English Queen, 
and alarmed by the rise of the Catholic League in France, 
acquiesced in the ruin of his favourite, and in the return 
to Scotland of the nobles who had been concerned in the 


Born at Linlithgow lo42, beheaded at Fotheringay 1587. 

From the memorial portrait at St. Mary's College, Blairs, Aberdeen. 



Ruthven raid. Arran fell in the end of 1585. A year 
later James gave Elizabeth a still stronger proof of 
friendship in the sacrifice of his mother. The continuance 
of conspiracies against her life compelled Elizabeth to 
consent to the execution of the guest whom she had 
invited to take refuge in England. She had long ago 
arranged with the Regent Morton that he should seize 
and murder Mary, and she now tried to persuade Mary's 
Puritan gaoler to murder his prisoner, but, in the end, 
she had to permit a public execution. James failed to 
make any real effort on Mary's behalf, and apologized 
for such efforts as he made, and when Elizabeth wrote 
to inform him that, on February 8, 1587, she had cut off 
the head of his mother by accident, James accepted the 
explanation, and took steps to resist the Armada. The 
execution of the Queen of Scots caused great indignation 
in Scotland ; there was a danger of a rising of Scottish 
Catholics in support of Philip, and in 1589 correspon- 
dence between Philip and the Earls of Huntly and Errol 
fell into the hands of Elizabeth. The writers received 
slight punishment, and three years later they were 
discovered in an intrigue for the landing in Scotland of a 
Spanish army, which was to invade England. We now 
know that James, who had in the interval made a 
Protestant marriage with the Princess Anne of Denmark, 
was in this plot, which is known as the " Spanish 
Blanks."* His lukewarmness in punishing the Catholic 
lords raised a suspicion of his complicity ; in the end he 
had to subdue Huntly and Errol, and in 1594 he destroyed 
their castles in Aberdeenshire. 

The rebellion of the Catholic lords was strangely mixed 
up with the almost incredible doings of the Earl of Both- 

* Eight papers were discovered — blank, except for the signatures of 
the Earls of Huntly, Angus, and Errol. Their messenger was in- 
structed to fill them up with conditions which had been given him by 
word of mouth. 




well, a nephew of Queen Mary's third husband. The 
story is too long for recital here, and its importance lies in 
the effect upon the King's ecclesiastical policy of the 
discredit which these events brought upon him. After 
the passing of the " Black Acts " of 1584, James had 
succeeded both in encouraging the growth of an episcopal 
party within the Church, and in separating the nobility 
from the clergy. By an Act of 1587 all ecclesiastical 
property was annexed to the crown, subject to an un- 
satisfactory provision for the payment of the clergy " in 
their degrees." A lavish distribution of lands among 
the nobles made it their interest to support the monarchy 
against the Church. But the failure of James to punish 
Huntly either for his first intrigue with Spain or for the 
murder of the " Bonny Earl of Moray " (son-in-law of the 
Regent) weakened his position so much that the Parlia- 
ment of 1592 rescinded the Black Acts and gave its 
sanction to the establishment of Presbytery. The 
Church had helped to maintain peace in the kingdom 
while James was in Denmark at the time of his marriage 
(1590), and the " Golden Acts " of 1592 were not entirely 
involuntary on the King's part. He was passing through 
a Protestant phase of mind, and in 1590 he had spoken 
publicly of the Anglican service as "an evil Mass said in 
English." The Presbytery of Edinburgh levied troops 
for his northern expedition against Huntly, and he 
appealed in 1596 to the General Assembly to grant him 
a tax ; so strong a position had the Church acquired, 
and so far it trespassed into the region of the civil power. 

The good understanding between the Church and the 
Crown was of short duration. In 1596 James, in spite 
of remonstrances from the General Assembly, allowed 
Huntly and Errol to return to Scotland. It was in 
connection with this incident that Andrew Melville made 
his famous assertion of the complete independence of the 



Church. "There is," he told James, " twa kings and 
twa kingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the 
King, and his kingdome the Kirk, whase subject King 
James the Saxt is, and of whase kingdome nocht a king 
nor a lord nor a heid, hot a member. And they whome 
Chryst hes callit and commandit to watch over his Kirk 
and govern his spirituall kingdome hes sufficient power 
of him." The Kjng dismissed Melville pleasantly, but 
before long his challenge was taken up, and " God's 
sillie vassal " proved stronger than the Church. A 
St. Andrews minister had, it was alleged, described 
Queen Elizabeth as an atheist, and he claimed to be tried 
by a Church court. The King's attempt to punish him 
led to a great riot in Edinburgh on December 17, 1596. 
James at once brought the capital to its senses by leaving 
the city and removing the Privy Council and the law 
courts. The citizens of Edinburgh submitted, and 
James himself summoned a series of Assemblies, in which 
he secured the presence of a large proportion of the 
episcopal party, who were strong ir the North of Scotland. 
He persuaded a committee appointed by one of these 
Assemblies to petition that the ministers of the Church 
should be represented in Parliament. There was only 
one possible method of representation, and an Act of 
Parliament of 1597 ordered that " all ministers provided 
to prelacies should have a vote in Parliament." An 
Assembly accepted the Act, and, though the word " Com- 
missioner " was used instead of " Bishop," three 
" Bishops " (without episcopal orders) were appointed 
in 1600 to the Sees of Aberdeen, Ross, and Caithness, the 
revenues of which had not been dissipated among the 
King's friends. James could boast that, before leaving 
Scotland he had destroyed the parity of the clergy. 
Having had the best of it in his struggle with Andrew 
Melville, he had also an opportunity of revenging himself 



for the Raid of Ruthven. The " Gowrie Conspiracy " of 
August, 1600, is one of the mysteries of Scottish history. 
James asserted that he had been inveigled to Perth and 
attacked by the young Earl of Gowrie and his brother, 
the Master of Ruthven ; he succeeded in getting help, 
and Gowrie and the Master were killed in the struggle. 
His story, true or false, is improbable. 

Elizabeth was taking " an unconscionable time in 
dying," and her impatient successor's last years in his 
native kingdom were busy with intrigues to prepare the 
way for his peaceful accession. He committed himself 
to the grant of something like toleration to English 
CathoHcs, while, at the same time, he secured the support 
of Robert Cecil. When EHzabeth died in March, 1603, 
he realized the ambition of his life, and on April 5, he left 
Edinburgh rejoicing. One of the members of his first 
House of Commons described Scotland as " the most 
barren and sterile of all countries," and the reply of the 
great Scottish lawyer. Sir Thomas Craig,* throws some 
light on the condition of the country when James left it : 

" Scotland, too, has her veins of ore, and reaps her 
harvest of heroes. Less fertile than England she may 
be, but she lacks none of the necessaries of life. Fewer 
of her people die of starvation than is the case in Eng- 
land, France, or Italy. . . . There is no country in 
which a man can live more pleasantly or delicately than 
Scotland. Nowhere else are fish so plentiful ; indeed, 
unless they are freshly caught on the very day, we refuse 
to eat them. We have meat of every kind. Nowhere 
else will you find more tender beef and mutton, or wild- 
fowl more numerous and of greater variety. . . . We 
eat barley bread as pure and white as that of England 
and France. Our servants are content with oatmeal, 
which makes them hardy and long-hved. The greater 

* De Unione Begnorum Britcmnice. Scott. Hist. Soc. trs. Prof. 
C. S. Terry, pp. 418, 419. 


Secretary of State to Mary, Queen of Scots. 

From the engraving by C. Picart of the original'painting by William Hilton, A.R.A., at 
Thirlstane Castle. 



number of our farm hands eat bread made of peas and 
beans. . . . So, though we have less money (and in that 
respect there is no comparison between us and our neigh- 
bours), yet we may console ourselves with the reflection 
that if our means are small, our needs are small also. . . . 
We do not mind our neighbours sneering at our lack of 
wealth. For wealth and material resources are not every- 
thing ; otherwise we should long ago have lost our liberty 
and fallen under the dominion of the English." 



Seven years before the death of Queen Elizabeth the 
King of Scotland told a General Assembly that " there 
would not be anie meane gentleman in Scotland more 
subject to the good order and discipline of the Kirk than 
he would be." Four years after the union of the Crowns 
the Sovereign of " Great Britain " said to his English 
Parliament : " I write and it is done, and by a Clearke of 
the Councell I governe Scotland now, which others could 
not do by the sword." The first assertion was a diplo- 
matic promise, the second a boast which both countries 
knew to be amply justified. King James's accession to 
the throne of the Tudors explains a part, and no small 
part, of the contrast. He had become possessed, not 
only of great resources and new dignities, but also of 
a machinery of absolute government, which, while 
it was being attacked in his new kingdom, might 
be applied to his old one. The introduction of the 
English methods of government by council is the charac- 
teristic feature of the rule of the three most powerful 
monarchs of Scotland, James I., Charles II., and 
James II. The Privy Council became at once the 
executive and the legislature of the kingdom. The 
Scottish Parliament was easily and promptly reduced 
to its traditional insignificance by the simple device of 
nominating the lords of the Articles. " Their parlia- 



ments hold but three days, their statutes are but three 
lines," was an English sneer at Scottish methods of 
government under King James, and the King himself 
regarded the Scottish Estates as the model of what 
Parliamentary institutions ought to be : 

" If any man doe propound or utter any seditious or 
uncomely speeches, he is straight interrupted and 
silenced. Only such bills as I allowe of are put into 
the Chancellor's hand to be propounded to the Parlia- 
ment. When they have passed them for lawes, they are 
presented unto me, and ... I must say : ' I ratifie and 
approve all things done in this present Parliament.' 
And if there bee anything that I dislike, they rase it out 

The General Assembly was forbidden to meet, and its 
place was taken by Courts of High Commission on the 
English model. Before leaving Scotland, James had 
established his ascendancy over the Privy Council, had 
reduced its numbers, and had added to its powers ; it 
now became a small committee of the King's servants, 
responsible to him for the administration of the country, 
and uncontrolled even by the decisions of the Court of 
Session. James lectured and scolded his Privy Coun- 
cillors, and sent them their orders from London. He 
had no intention of destroying the influence of Parliament 
and Assembly in order to establish an all-powerful 

His English heritage made King James the master of 
the nobility of Scotland. Baronial rivalries had already 
been stilled by the influence of the Reformation. Family 
feuds, like national antagonisms, held of necessity a 
minor place in a country whose population was obsessed 
by religious bitterness, and the scramble for Church 
lands provided a more tempting object of ambition than 
the old struggles for an uncertain, and in its nature, 



temporary hold upon the reins of government. James, 
in Scotland, had purchased peace by grants of ecclesi- 
astical lands, and his departure from Edinburgh did not 
make his gifts any less lavish. To these restraints upon 
the quarrels of the Scottish nobility were now added 
some new considerations. Treacherous leagues with 
England were impossible ; Border lords and Highland 
chiefs could no longer look to London for support against 
Edinburgh. With the opportunity had disappeared the 
temptation, for Scotsmen began to succumb to the 
attractions of " town." The transference of the Court 
to England made London the goal of Scottish ambition. 
James wished to reduce his old kingdom to the condition 
of " Cumberland and Northumberland and those other 
remote and northern shires." His wish was not 
destined to be realized in its entirety, but, for the rest 
of the reign of King James, the Scottish baronage were as 
the nobihty of the North of England. They had become 
local magnates, and if they longed for opportunities of 
action on a wider field, they must seek them in London. 
The mysteries of State, of which King James loved to 
speak, could no longer be found in Edinburgh. 

The feudal menace to the Scottish monarchy had thus 
been removed, and James was strong enough to keep 
in check the new danger which the Reformation had 
created. The explanation of the success of his ecclesi- 
astical pohcy is simple enough. His measures were 
directed against the clergy, and for the most part he left 
the laity alone. He set himself to destroy the political 
power of the Church, about which the ministers cared 
much, and only once did he attempt to interfere with the 
forms which were dear to the heart of the layman. He 
recognized that the substitution of a white surpHce for a 
black gown was a much more dangerous innovation than 
the manipulation, or even the suppression, of the General 



Assembly. It was not James, but Charles, who sowed 
the wind, and the harvest was reaped by the sower. 
James cared much about theological doctrine, more 
about the relations between Church and State, little 
about ecclesiastical order. His theology, after his 
departure to England, gave slight offence, even to the 
stoutest Calvinist. In 1603 he spoke of the Roman 
Church as " our Mother Church," but in the same sentence 
he protested against her " numerous corruptions and 
infirmities." and, some years later, he devoted many 
pages to identifying the Pope with the Antichrist and " our 
Mother Church " with the Scarlet Woman. In ecclesi- 
astical polity he was a moderate. Episcopacy he re- 
garded as of the bene esse of the State, but it was not of 
the esse of the Church. 

" I do think it a speciall point of oure Christian liberty 
which Christ hath left unto us," he wrote, with a tolerance 
more wise than gracious, " that every Christian king, 
free prince, or state, may sette downe and establishe 
suche a forme of exterioure ecclesiasticall policie in the 
church within theire dominions as shall best agree with 
the frame of their civill governement and policie." * 

The sentiment here expressed did not bring King 
James any nearer to Andrew Melville, but it saved him 
from the error of Charles and Laud, and rendered possible 
the acquiescence of the people of Scotland in the estab- 
lishment of a form of episcopacy which satisfied the 
requirements of his " civill governement and policie." 
The difference between the King and Melville admitted 
of no compromise. Each believed in a Divine prerogative, 
each claimed supreme powers. James was prepared 
to make men conform in religion or to " harry them out 
of the land " ; the Melvillian party believed that it was 

* Lusus Begins, being poems and other pieces by King James I., 
now first set forth and edited by Robert S. Rait, 1901, p. 65. 



in their province to drive men into a different kind of 
conformity or to give them over " in the hands and 
power of the devill." The King demanded obedience 
to the monarchy under the penalties of treason ; the 
preachers reminded him of the fate of Saul, and recalled 
the plagues which troubled the people of Israel " till the 
sonnes and posteritie of SauU were takine and hangit 
up." When he attempted to enforce his authority over 
the Church the answer of the preachers was " a plaine 
Nolumus, detestamus, execramus, anaihematizamusy 
They never ceased to assert that they claimed no " im- 
munity or privilege, as the Papists do." But " according 
to the Word of God and lawse of the realme, they had 
distinguishchit the civill and ecclesiasticall jurisdiction." 
There could be no such distinction, for religion was the 
pontics of the time, and the Church had already proved 
itself the greatest power in the State. The appeal to 
the laws of the realm was rarely in its favour, and was 
indeed scarcely compatible with the higher ground which 
it assumed. John Knox had urged that the consent of 
the Sovereign was unnecessary for the Reformation 
Settlement ; if it was asked, the request was merely an 
indication of " debtfuU obedience," not to " beg any 
strength to our Religion." If there were two Kings and 
two kingdoms in Scotland, the Kirk could not require 
the support of the secular law, useful as that might be 
upon occasion. Each party had adopted an impossible 
position, and the ultimate appeal was to the sword. 

Meanwhile King James pursued his own policy of 
going to the extreme limits of safety. He struck promptly 
and he struck hard. A General Assembly had met in 
the November before his accession to the English throne ; 
the King determined that there should never be another 
meeting under the old conditions. The " Golden Act " 
of 1 592 contemplated an annual Assembly, and a meeting 


had been arranged for July, 1604. James declined to 
summon it, and protests were made in vain. Next year 
a meeting of the Assembly was again prohibited ; nine- 
teen ministers disobeyed the injunction by holding a 
meeting at Aberdeen, and ten others arrived too late to 
join in defying King and Privy Council. The small 
numbers of this Assembly may be taken as an indication 
of the strength of the King's position even when, as in 
this case, he soon found himself compelled to abandon an 
attempt to bring his opponents under the penalties of 
treason for refusing to admit the right of a secular court 
to deal with their offence. The Privy Council, whose 
authority they had denied, warned James that he was 
creating universal sympathy for them, and the King 
adopted a new and characteristic device. He contented 
himself with banishing the members of the Aberdeen 
Assembly, and summoned to his own presence Andrew Mel- 
ville, his nephew, James Melville, whose human Diary is 
the most fascinating record of the time, and six other promi- 
nent ministers. They reached London in September, 
1606, and were graciously received ; they listened to 
Anglican sermons, and they debated with Anglican 
divines in the royal presence. Compromise was, of 
course, out of the question. " Either the Pope or the 
Prince or the Presbytery must have supremacy over the 
Church, the Pope is not to have it " ; this was the 
measure of agreement in a private discussion between 
James Melville and Dr. Montagu, afterwards Bishop of 
Winchester. " Mr. Calvin gives it to the Presbytery, 
and so do we," said Melville. " That is treason in 
England," was the reply, " for the Prince has it by our 
laws." Melville's retort was obvious : " Not by our 
laws of Scotland." Montagu met it with a prophecy 
which was already being fulfilled : "Ye must have it so 
in Scotland," he said abruptly, and went his way. 



The fulfilment would be easier if there were no Mel- 
villes in Scotland, and Andrew Melville's tongue gave 
James the excuse he wanted. In one discussion he 
referred to the King's Advocate, who had prosecuted the 
Aberdeen Assembly, as " the accuser of the brethren." 
James knew his Bible, and he looked at Archbishop 
Bancroft. " Methinks he makes him Antichrist," he 
said. " By God, it is the devil's name in the Revela- 
tion ! He has made the devil of him." Turning his 
back on Melville, he closed the interview. Soon after- 
wards James obtained a copy of an unpubUshed Latin 
epigram, in which Andrew Melville had spoken of the 
English Church in terms similar to those which the 
King applied to the Roman. He had found the marks 
of the Babylonish harlot on an English altar, as he found 
Romish rags in Bancroft's lawn sleeves. The lines, 
printed in James Melville's Diary, are in the contro- 
versial manner of the day, but the Lords of the Council 
considered them good ground for imprisonment. Mel- 
ville was kept for some months in honourable restraint, 
and in May, 1607, was committed to the Tower, where he 
remained until the spring of 1611. Henri de la Tour, Due 
de Bouillon, wished to avail himself of his services in the 
University of Sedan, and James allowed him to go into 
lifelong exile. A great scholar and a brave man, Andrew 
Melville had left his mark upon both the ecclesiastical 
and the educational system of Scotland. His com- 
panions were more tenderly dealt with. They were 
informed that the King wished them to have further 
opportunities of considering the arguments for episco- 
pacy. It was proposed to billet them among Anglican 
dignitaries as the involuntary guests of unwilling hosts. 
James Melville urged upon Bancroft the unsatisfactory 
nature of the arrangement, and the Archbishop agreed. 
" I do think, my Brother, that the Bishops would have 


little pleasure of you, except to pleasure the King's 
Majesty, for our custom is, after our serious matters, to 
refresh ourselves an hour or two with cards and other 
games after meals, and you are more precise." The 
prelates were saved from guests who refused to play 
cards ; James Melville was ordered to reside at New- 
castle, and the other ministers, under various restrictions, 
were permitted to return to Scotland. 

While the Melvilles were defending Presbytery in 
London, James was busy attacking it in Scotland. 
Between the issue of their summons to England and the 
date of their final departure from Scotland, the Estates 
at Perth had framed an Act acknowledging " His 
Majesty's sovereign authority, princely power, royal 
prerogative, and privilege of his crown over all estates, 
persons, and causes whatsoever." In 1597 James had 
prepared the way for the restoration of episcopacy, and 
on the same July day of 1606 on which was passed the 
Act " anent the King's prerogative," the obedient 
Parliament legislated for the restitution of the estate of 
Bishops. It regretted that " the ancient and funda- 
mental policy consisting in the maintenance of the Three 
Estates of Parliament has been greatly impaired and 
almost subverted by the indirect abolishing of the Estate 
of Bishops by the act of annexation of the temporalities 
of benefices to the crown," passed in 1587, and that act was 
forthwith rescinded. Before James Melville left London 
for Newcastle, in 1607, Bancroft was able to say to him : 

" Our difference is only in the governing of the Kirk 
and some ceremonies ; but I understand, since ye came 
from Scotland, your Kirk is almost brought to be one 
with ours in that also ; for I am certified that there are 
Constant Moderatores appoyntit in your Generall As- 
semblies, synods and Presbyteries ... in every Province 
and Diocese there is a Bishop, a Moderator of a Chapter 
or a Presbytery, answerable all to the King." 



Bancroft's words, spoken in March, 1607, revealed to 
Melville the full significance of an occurrence of the 
previous December. James had nominated about 130 
ministers to meet a number of noblemen at Linhthgow, 
and this body had accepted a royal proposal that each 
Presb}i:ery should have a perpetual Moderator. Before 
dispersing, it nominated Moderators, and arranged that 
each of the existing Bishops should be the perpetual 
Moderator of his own Presb}i;ery. Each Moderator was 
promised by the King an annual salary of £100 Scots. 
In January, James referred to this Linhthgow meeting 
as a General Assembly, and in the spring a pubhshed 
version of its Acts was found to contain provisions that 
Sj-nods as well as Presb}i;eries should possess perpetual 
Moderators, and that the Moderators of Presb^iieries 
and Sj^nods should alwa^^s be members of the General 
Assembly. Permanent Moderators of Provincial Synods 
provided a stepping-stone to episcopal government, and 
there was much discontent. The Privy Council hesitated, 
but James went boldly on. In 1608 he summoned a 
General Assembly, in which, says Calderwood,* " the 
bishops gott a great vantage. They were continued [as] 
commissioners [members] of the Grcneral Assemblie and 
perpetuall moderators of the presbyteries where they 
were resident." Calderwood explains the royal victory 
by the exile or banishment of the wisest and most learned 
among the Presb}i:erian leaders, and it is clear that the 
opponents of episcopacy felt the absence of the Melvilles. 
Other considerations must not be forgotten. James had 
given the Bishops authority to determine ministerial 
stipends, and just before the Assembly met they had 
employed these powers. " By augmentation they allured, 

* David Calderwood, 1575-1650. EQs History of the KirJc of 
Scotland is the classical account of this period from the Presbyterian 


by diminution they weakened and discouraged a number 
of the ministry," says Calderwood, and there were not 
wanting suggestions of more open bribery. AUke in 
1607 and in 1608, the King urged a more drastic treat- 
ment of Papists, and thereby conciHated popular feeling. 
The payments to the Moderators were originally made to 
enable them to take measures against Popish recusants. 
The same device was employed in the Parliament of 

1609. It began by employing episcopal machinery to 
enforce the penal laws, and then proceeded to give the 
Bishops the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction in spiritual 
and ecclesiastical cases. These Acts were followed by the 
creation, in 1610, of a Court of High Commission for each 

Everything was now ready for the final step, and James 
convened a nominated Assembly at Glasgow in June, 

1610. Its procedure, as usually happened during this 
period, was ingeniously assimilated to that of the Scottish 
Parliament, for, after the election of the Moderator (the 
Archbishop of Glasgow), the first business was to appoint 
a committee resembling the Lords of the Articles. The 
royal commissioner, the Earl of Dunbar, the Bishops, 
and a number of officials, noblemen, and ministers were 
appointed as a " Privy Conference," and this conference 
prepared a series of resolutions to which the Assembly 
assented. They condemned the Aberdeen Assembly, 
agreed that Bishops should be Moderators in every 
" Diocesan Synod," gave the Bishops power over presenta- 
tions to livings, depositions of ministers and excommunica- 
tions, and arranged for episcopal visitations. Bishops 
were to be subject to the censure of the General Assembly, 
but could not be deprived without the King's consent. 
No minister, under pain of deprivation, was to speak 
against the decisions of the Assembly of 1610, or to preach 
upon " the question of equality and inequality in the 



kirk." The General Assembly had sold the pass. If 
parity might not be taught from Scottish pulpits, Presby- 
tery was doomed. Calderwood says that the members 
were bribed, under pretext of paying travelling expenses. 
Whether there was bribery or not, there certainly was 
sharp practice. James had won his victory by the recog- 
nized methods of statecraft. He had still to make his 
prelates into Bishops in more than name. Three of their 
number, the Archbishop of Glasgow (John Spottiswoode, 
the historian), and the Bishops of Brechin and Galloway, 
went to London to receive consecration from the Bishops 
of London, Ely, and Bath ; neither of the English Arch- 
bishops was to take part in the ceremony, lest Canterbury 
or York should revive the old claim to superiority. The 
Bishop of Ely, Lancelot Andre wes, wished to ordain them 
to the diaconate and the priesthood before proceeding 
to consecration, but Bancroft and Abbot, on different 
grounds, agreed that it was unnecessary. Spottiswoode* 
records this discussion, but it does not interest Calder- 
wood, who devotes his attention to showing that the 
Glasgow Assembly, though it had conferred jurisdiction 
upon the prelates, had not authorized them " to take 
upon them the office of a Bishop, distinct from the office 
of a presbyter." The three Bishops returned to Scotland 
and consecrated their brethren. There was no re- 
ordination of the clergy. The Acts of the Assembly of 
1610 were ratified by Parliament in 1612, and all Acts 
of a contrary tendency were rescinded. Under cover of 
explaining the meaning of the Assembly's resolutions, 
the Act omitted all reference to the subjection of Bishops 
to the censure of a General Assembly, allowed them to 
appoint substitutes as Moderators of Synods, and granted 

* John Spottiswoode, 1565-1637, Archbishop of St. Andrews, author 
of a History of the Church and State of Scotland up to the death 
of James VI. 

T. &• R. All nan & So>is 
Bishop Robert Wishart built the nave in the later part of the thirteenth century. 


them other powers. The Assembly had asked that it 
should meet annually, but there is no such provision in 
the Act. 

James had not destroyed Presbytery : he had grafted 
the office of Bishop on to a Presbjrterian system. The 
inferior Church Courts, the Kirk Session, the Presbytery, 
and the Synod still met, their powers were undefined, and, 
with popular feehng behind them, they could fight it 
out with the Bishops on equal terms. When the Bishops 
represented the central power, as in the High Commission 
Court (the two courts were united after Spottiswoode's 
translation to St. Andrews in 1615), they were supreme ; 
in their own separate dioceses they had to share their 
authority with the coiu'ts of the Church. Extant ecclesi- 
astical records give ample proof of the vigour of Presby- 
teries and Kirk Sessions, and the ordinary layman rarely 
had the existence of a Bishop brought home to him. 
Presbyteries frequently decided marriage questions ; 
Kirk Sessions still punished Sabbath-breakers. The 
punishment of witches and the persecution of Papists 
afforded congenial exercise for the courts of the Church. 
The clergy murmured at the loss of their parity, but the 
laity, though they sympathized with individual victims 
of the royal policy, were by no means ripe for rebellion. 
They still possessed what they most cared about — the 
traditional ritual of the Presbyterian Church. Com- 
munion was received in a sitting posture ; the observance 
of Holy Days was so rare as to receive special comment 
from the historians of the time ; the ministers preached 
in their black Genevan gowns ; in the conduct of public 
worship they still followed Knox's Book of Common 

So far the King's policy had met with almost uniform 
success, and, in spite of his arbitrary methods and the 
discontent which they had aroused, there was a possi- 




bility of permanence in the results that he had achieved. 
Some years later, James adopted new measures which 
gravely imperilled the existence of his ecclesiastical 
settlement. Not content with the attainment of his great 
end of subjecting the Church to the secular power, he 
entered upon a series of experiments of an entirely new 
character. The assimilation of the Church of Scotland 
to the Church of England appeared to him to be the 
logical conclusion of the introduction of Episcopacy, and 
so complete was his command of the ecclesiastical ma- 
chinery of the country, that he determined to gain his 
ends through the action of the General Assembly. He 
had always insisted that it was not his intention to 
destroy the constitution of the Church, " but rather 
to augment and strengthen the same," and he had more 
than once announced that, as he had not interfered with 
Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, and Provincial Assemblies, 
so "it never was his intention but that the keeping of 
General Assemblies at certain competent times was, and 
is, a most necessary means for the preservation of piety 
and union in the Kirk." No certain competent time 
occurred between 1610 and 1616, but in the summer of 
the latter year, James summoned an Assembly to meet 
in the episcopalian atmosphere of Aberdeen. Its members 
were not nominated, for the Bishop instructed the 
Presbyteries to "send their moderators with other 
commissioners and to furnish them with expenses." The 
Bishops attended without commissions from any of the 
courts of the Church, and the Archbishop of St. Andrews 
assumed the Moderatorship without any form of election. 
The reason assigned for the meeting was, as usual, the 
increase of Popery, and new methods of persecution 
were duly devised, and discussed at such length as to 
" make the Assembly to weary." When it became 
known that the remainder of the business included the 



introduction of a new Confession of Faith, a new Cate- 
chism and a new Liturgy, numbers of the clerical members 
began to go home. 

" They suffered all malcontents to depart. There 
rested then nothing but to ask those who were present, 
' What say ye, my lord V ' What say ye, laird V ' What 
say ye, Mr. Doctor V It was answered, ' Well, my lord.' 
If any man pressed to speak unspeared at [unquestioned] 
the Bishop wagged his finger and that meant silence." 

The new Confession of Faith was produced and sanc- 
tioned, and it was agreed to prepare a " short and com- 
pendious Catechism " and a Liturgy and " form of 
Divine service," to replace the " common prayers con- 
tained in the Psalm Books," as the Book of Common 
Order was generally called. Extemporary or " con- 
ceived prayers," which had by this time become frequent, 
were to be used along with the new Liturgy. 

The King was encouraged by the success of his first 
attempt. The Assembly was neither nominated nor 
bribed, yet the Holy Ghost (enclosed, as Calderwood 
profanely remarks, in a packet of letters from Whitehall) 
had guided it to comply with his wishes. The enemy, 
instead of withstanding the Bishops and the royal repre- 
sentatives, had sought refuge in flight. James was now 
meditating a visit to Scotland to continue his work in 
person, and he gave orders for the redecoration of the 
royal chapel at Holyrood, with carved figures of Patriarchs 
and Apostles. This idolatrous innovation drew protests 
from the Bishops themselves. The King was annoyed, 
but his rough humour came to the rescue. He wanted, 
he said, no " images and painted pictures adored by 
Papists " ; lions, dragons, and devils, would do as well 
to ornament the royal pew as Patriarchs and Apostles, 
*' and which of you would have been scandalized or 
offended if figures of lions, dragons, and devils had been 



put up ?" In the summer of 1617 James paid his long- 
promised visit and horrified the capital by the ritual at 
Holyrood, where organs played, choristers sang, and 
surplices were to be seen, and where the Bishops com- 
municated kneeling, " not regarding either Christ's in- 
stitution or the order of our Kirk." It is significant of 
the feeling in the country that the Bishop of Galloway, 
who regarded surplices and altars as " Romish toys," 
refused for some time to comply with the royal command 
to receive the Communion kneeling. To kneel at prayer 
was usual ; the objection to the posture at Communion 
lay in the belief that it impHed an adoration of the 
elements. At a small ecclesiastical convention held at 
St. Andrews, James asked for the acceptance of the rule 
of kneeling and for some other concessions. The reply 
was that only a General Assembly was competent to deal 
with such a question. " The King seemed to be content 
with the answer," says Calderwood ; he returned to 
England in September, and summoned an Assembly 
which met at St. Andrews in November (1617). The 
Bishops undertook to superintend the election of its 
members, but they failed to procure an obedient Assembly, 
and James was compelled to summon another, which 
met at Perth in August, 1618. This time the Bishops 
had organized a thorough canvass, and were sure of their 
ground, and they carried the famous Five Articles of 
Perth, the modifications of ritual which James had, during 
his visit to Scotland, announced his intention of enforcing. 
Kneeling at Communion ; the observance of Christmas, 
Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whit Sunday ; 
episcopal confirmation ; private baptism in cases of neces- 
sity ; and private Communion for the sick were the points 
on which the King had set his heart. The Bishops made 
no attempt to defend the royal views ; they frankly 
confessed that the changes were not of their seeking, and 


their best argument was that the Five Articles were in 
themselves " things indifferent " and should be accepted 
by loyal subjects. Otherwise, said the King's letter, 
and the Bishops pressed home the threat, the Church of 
Scotland was not likely to see another General Assembly. 

The result of the discussion was a foregone conclusion, 
but this time there was no flight of the enemy. In the 
face of an announcement that the names of any who 
voted against the Articles would be reported to the King, 
they were carried only by eighty-six votes to forty-nine. 
The minority included forty-five ministers, but the quarrel 
between the King and the Church had ceased to be a 
clerical dispute. In the vain effort to enforce obedience 
to the Articles, it was necessary over and over again to 
prosecute laymen who encouraged ministers to refuse 
to dispense the Communion to kneeling recipients. When 
Parliament was invited in 1621 to ratify the Articles 
of Perth, there was opposition even among the Lords of 
the Articles, and the Act was passed with some difHculty. 
Of the burgess members twenty voted for it, and twenty- 
four against it. To the Act of 1612, which established 
Episcopacy, there had been no such opposition ; but now 
the laity were in the line with the clergy. In spite of 
Assembly and Parliament, in the teeth of royal proclama- 
tions, the Articles were not obeyed, nor could James, 
even by an increase in the powers of the High Commission, 
secure their observance outside of the episcopal area 
in the north-east. Some few ministers preached on 
Christmas Days to congregations which, it was said, 
included more dogs than men ; there was irreverent 
wrangling at Holy Communion ; churches where the royal 
commands were defied were crowded on Communion 
Sundays, and others were empty ; ministers were deprived 
and imprisoned ; the citizens of Edinburgh were threatened 
with the removal of the courts ; pamphlets were sup- 



pressed ; the Court of High Commission had to deal with 
recusants of all classes from a Senator of the College of 
Justice to the tradesmen of Edinburgh. 

This was the situation at the King's death. Having 
found a solution of the problem of the relations between 
Church and State, he had himself reopened the question, 
for nothing less was involved in the opposition to the 
Five Articles. The Bishops thought the Church of Scot- 
land would have been better without these ceremonies ; 
to the people they were not things indifferent, and " they 
must obey God rather than men." It was probably 
this that roused the old King to a fury, which made the 
Bishops tremble for what might follow. In all the hideous 
persecution of the Roman Catholics, James had put only 
one priest to death, the Jesuit, Ogilvie, who told his 
judges that he regarded neither King nor Parliament so 
far as they contradicted the commands of the Pope. 
" Some deemed that it was done to be a terror to the 
sincerer sort of ministers not to decline the King's 
authority in any sense whatsoever." The warning was 
without effect : for during the last few years of the reign 
ministers and their people were loud in their denials of 
the right of the King to legislate for the Church. Yet 
it would be a mistake to regard the royal policy as ending 
in failure. It required more than ten years of still more 
foolish government to produce a rebellion. The Articles 
of Perth were but whips compared with the scorpions 
with which Charles and Laud were to propose to chastise 
the Church, and James contributed little to the forces 
which overwhelmed his son. Two incidents will serve 
to illustrate the extent to which the measures of James VI. 
were successful as a settlement of the ecclesiastical ques- 
tion in Scotland. Calderwood relates of a minister of 
Edinburgh, who accepted the Articles, that, years before, 

when his pupil, now Earl of Wigtown, had styled one 



of the Bishops ' My Lord,' he bade him loose his points 
and threatened to whip him." The change of feeling 
before the outbreak of the Bishops' Wars is seen in one 
of the earhest known letters of Robert Baillie, the future 
Presbyterian leader. Writing in 1637 to a friend, he 
said : 

" I think the two vacant Bishoprics shall be the occa- 
sion of thy provision ; but God make thee a better one 
than the many among us are. Bishops I love, but pride, 
greed, luxury, oppression, immersion in secular affairs, 
was the bane of the Romish Prelates, and cannot have 
long good success in the Reformed." 

James had made Bishops possible in Scotland ; he had 
not done more, but this was much. 

The real national history of the period is the ecclesi- 
astical struggle, and the other aspects of the reign of 
James need not detain us long. His proposals for a 
union of the two kingdoms were pressed with an insistence 
which was indicative of little practical wisdom, and they 
were advocated in speeches full of the grotesque rhetoric 
in which he delighted : 

" What God hath conjoyned let no man separate. I 
am the Husband, and all the whole Isle is my lawful 
wife ; I am the Head, and it is my Body ; I am the 
Shepherd, and it is my flocke ; I hope therefore no man 
will be so unreasonable as to thinke that I that am a 
Christian King under the Gospel should be a Polygamist 
and husband to two wives ; that I, being the Head, 
should have a divided and monstrous Body ; or that, 
being the Shepheard to so faire a flocke (whose fold hath 
no wall to hedge it but the foure seas) should have my 
Flocke parted in two." 

England, he told his Parliament at Westminster, 
would have all the advantages of the Union. " Is not 
here the personall residence of the King, his whole Court 



and family ? Is not here the seat of Justice and the 
fountaine of Government ? . . . Some thinke that I 
will draw the Scottish nation hither, talking idlely of 
transporting of trees out of a barren ground into a better. 
. . . Doe you not thinke I know England hath more 
people, Scotland more wast ground ? so that there is 
roumth in Scotland rather to plant your idle people 
that swarme in London streets." From 1604 to 1609 
James was busy endeavouring to persuade his English 
Parliament to accept a full and complete Union of the 
kingdoms. The Scottish Parliament, Scots Law, and the 
Scottish Church, were alike to cease to have any separate 
existence. In the great boon of freedom of trade, James 
considered that he possessed an all-sufficient inducement 
for the Scots ; if England granted commercial equality, 
the Scottish Estates would accept English Law in three 
days. The remark was shrewd, but the prophecy was 
not to be tested, for the English Parliament would not 
hear of the abolition of the tariff. Even the Commission 
which recommended union in 1606 exempted cloth and 
meat from their free-trade proposals. The King gained 
two points. All laws which treated Scotland as a hostile 
country were repealed, and the English judges decided 
that Scotsmen born after King James's accession to the 
English throne (the Post nati) were no aliens, but natural 
subjects of the Crown. It was probably fortunate for 
James that he was disappointed in his attempts to carry 
what is, on general grounds, the most statesman-like 
scheme associated with his name. Such a union, dic- 
tated by the royal power, and involving the complete 
assimilation of the Churches, would probably have pro- 
voked a rebellion in Scotland, and might well have 
strengthened the Puritan party in the English Commons. 

The paternal Government which James had created in 
his ancient kingdom was, apart from religious questions, 



a benevolent despotism. The published records of the 
Privy Council of Scotland bear witness to the deter- 
mination with which he attempted to establish a rule of 
law throughout the country ; the historians who like him 
least allow him the credit of a persistent endeavour to 
attain a good end, and those who treat him most gently 
are unable to deny that the means he adopted sometimes 
involved chicanery and injustice. Family quarrels, 
which still led, on occasion, to free fights and the spilling 
of blood, were punished with fines and imprisonment. 
The Highlands were dragooned into something like 
obedience. The Clan Gregor had, early in 1603, dis- 
tinguished themselves by an assault on the Colquhouns 
and Buchanans and the burning of the house of Luss. 
For this exploit their chief, deceived by a safe-conduct 
from the Earl of Argyll, was hanged at Edinburgh in 
1604, and fire and sword was proclaimed (and freely 
used) against the clan. The Privy Council ordered that 
none should bear the name of Gregor or McGregor under 
pain of death, and that all concerned in the " slaughter 
of the Lennox " should be prohibited under a similar 
penalty from carrying any weapon except " one pointless 
kniff to cutt thair meate." As late as 1617, legislative 
sanction was given to these ordinances by the Estates in 
order to prevent the rising generation from taking the 
name that their fathers had been forced to abjure. 
Cantjnre and the Southern Hebrides possessed clans as 
troublesome as the McGregors themselves, and after a 
treacherous capture of some of the chiefs, an agreement 
was made, in 1609, on the sacred soil of Zona. The 
Band or Covenant of Icolmkill provided for the establish- 
ment of churches, the suppression of vagabonds and 
beggars (among whom bards were somewhat arbitrarily 
included), the spread of the English tongue, and the 
punishment of offenders. The carrying of firearms and 



the importation of wine and whisky were prohibited, 
but inns were to be estabUshed for the reception of 
travellers. Such remedial measures could only gradually 
be carried out, but provisions for the education of the 
children of chiefs and yeomen in the Lowlands until they 
could speak English were certain to bear fruit in the 
distant future. James had further difficulties in Islay, 
and Argyll was employed to put down two Macdonald 
rebellions, but the rule that the chiefs were to be held 
responsible for the obedience of their people brought by 
degrees something like order into the Highlands. While 
the clan system gave trouble in the West, the power of 
a feudal noble became dangerous in the Orkneys, where 
the Earl of Orkney governed so oppressively that James 
imprisoned him at Edinburgh. Two of his sons rebelled, 
and, although in 1612 the Orkneys and Shetlands were 
" annexed and appropriated to the patrimony of the 
Crown," there was no peace until the Earl and one of his 
sons were hanged. In the Borders, the Union with 
England rendered the royal task easier, and a joint 
English and Scottish Commission, possessed of supreme 
powers, reduced them to order by the merciless means 
which were generally recognized as being alone applicable 
to such situations. 

During his last years in Scotland James had organized 
" plantations," or colonies of " answerable Lowland 
subjects," in the Western Islands, but he could not 
protect their lives or property, and the Lowland colonies 
in Lewis soon came to an end. A similar experiment was 
carried out with more success in Ulster, where James, in 
1609, invited Englishmen and Scotsmen to settle. The 
Scots in Ireland proved good colonists ; they were poor, 
and had to make a living. In spite of royal prohibitions, 
they intermarried with the Irish, and they were successful 
in persuading them to work for them. A favourite pro- 



ject of the King's last years was the colonization of 
Acadia, to which the name of Nova Scotia was given. It 
was not a success, and early in the reign of Charles I. 
the territory was abandoned to France, which possessed 
a prior claim to it. To raise money for the plantation 
of Ulster, James had instituted the title of " Baronet," 
and he now sold baronetcies of Scotland or Nova Scotia 
to anyone who paid 6,000 marks for the settlement in 
Nova Scotia. 

On March 27, 1625, King James died at Theobalds. 
He had not completed his fifty-ninth year, but men had 
long thought of him as " the old King." He had 
spent a stormy and strenuous youth, and, though his 
character degenerated in later life, he was never indolent 
or careless of his duties. Full as his days were of states- 
craft and intrigue, he found time not only for his favourite 
pastime of hunting, but also for reading and study. His 
native caution was balanced by an arrogant self-confi- 
dence, derived partly from the pride of kingship and 
partly from the assurance of pedantry. His cunning was 
often ineffective because of a fundamental naivete which 
it could not conceal ; his humour rarely saved him from 
the worst errors that lack of humour can bring, and never 
softened the cruelty which was inherent in his nature. 
In judging of his dealings with Scotland after 1603, the 
effect of his earlier experiences must fairly be taken into 
consideration. Neither James nor his family ever forgot 
the humiliations which Andrew Melville and the preachers 
had inflicted upon him. Fifty years after the King's 
death, his grandson, the Elector Palatine, recorded, in 
writing to his sister, the Electress Sophia, a story of the 
prayer of a Scottish minister for King James. " Break 
an arm or a legge of him, good Lord, and set him up 
againe," was the petition. James himself told the Perth 
Assembly of 1618 that he could hardly forget, though he 



little liked to remember, " what and how manie abuses 
were offered to us by manie of the ministrie before our 
happie coming to this crown," and thanked God that he 
had been able to forgive. There is little sign of forgive- 
ness except the King's own words. James had un- 
doubtedly a blood-feud with the Scottish clergy, and he 
has been judged by his treatment of his enemies. He is 
the oddest, the most incongruous figure in our annals, 
but it is only fair to say that he had a real love for Scot- 
land and a genuine desire for her welfare. 

His son and successor, Charles I., made Bishops im- 
possible in Scotland. It was, from the first, his intention 
to go beyond the Five Articles of Perth, and to enforce 
Anglican doctrine, discipline, and ritual, upon the 
Episcopal-Presbyterian Church which James had estab- 
lished. With the fatal facility for combining in opposition 
to himself all possible enemies which marked his rule in 
England, Charles prepared the way for his ecclesiastical 
changes by alienating the Scottish nobility — the class 
which, from its growing familiarity with English ways, 
was least likely to resent ecclesiastical innovations. Im- 
mediately on his accession Charles announced his inten- 
tion of revoking all grants of land made since the death 
of James V. in 1542. It had been usual for Sovereigns 
of Scotland, on coming of age, to revoke grants made 
during their minority, but it was difficult to plead such 
revocations as precedents for the recall of grants made 
over eighty years before. The reigns of the King's 
father and grandmother had seen the distribution of the 
lands of the Church among the nobility, and the rise of 
new families on the ruins of the monasteries. There was 
scarcely a landowner in Scotland who was not affected 
by the Act of Revocation, issued under the Privy Seal 
in October, 1625. Charles's object was not merely to 
increase the royal revenue ; he wished also to make proper 



provision for the stipends of the clergy. The tithes, or 
" teinds," declared by Act of Parliament to be " the 
patrimony of the Kirk," had, in Scotland as elsewhere, 
been largely alienated from the medieval parish priests, 
and in the confiscations of the Reformation they had 
fallen into the hands of numbers of miscellaneous owners, 
unconnected with the lands from which they were drawn. 
In the disputes between the heritors or landowners and 
these new holders (known as "titulars of teinds"), the 
unfortunate clergy fared badly, and Charles proposed, 
not only to recover the Church lands for the Crown, but 
also to compel the titulars of teinds to cede their rights 
to the heritors or landowners of a parish, who would 
become directly responsible for their payment. Com- 
pensation must, of course, be given both to the titulars 
and to the holders of ecclesiastical lands, and in 1627 a 
Commission was appointed to settle the terms of sur- 
render. Its deliberations and the numerous negotia- 
tions which accompanied so long a series of transactions 
are described by Professor Masson in his introduction to 
the first volume of the second series of the Privy Council 
Register. In the end, ten years' purchase was allowed 
for the lands, and nine years' purchase of one-fifth of the 
rent was decided to be sufficient compensation for the 
titulars. The process has been described by Professor 
Hume Brown as " the greatest economic revolution 
recorded in Scottish history." Its details were decided 
within about five years from the King's accession, and 
by the constant pressure of arbitrary power. When the 
final settlement was announced to the Scottish Parlia- 
ment, the King had laid, in the opinion of one of his own 
officials, " the ground stone of all the mischief that 
followed after." He had secured the payment of the 
ministers of the Established Church by an arrangement 
which has lasted to the present day, but he could look 



for little gratitude, and he received none. From many- 
pulpits there had come denunciations of " noblemen and 
others who would not quit their teinds . . . and put 
them into the King's hands, to be imployed for the main- 
tenance of ministers, and the poore, and schoolls, and 
other pious uses," but we do not read of commendations 
of the monarch who was responsible for a reform which 
increased the royal power over the Church. The nobles 
and the country gentlemen had found in the division of 
ecclesiastical lands both an incontrovertible argument for 
the Reformation and a good reason for supporting 
James VI. against the Reformed Church, and the Act of 
Revocation supplied an equally sound argument for 
aiding the recalcitrant Church against the King. The 
burghs suffered with the nobility, for they had shared 
in the spoils of the Church. 

There was still another grievance of the new reign. 
Charles deprived the Senators of the College of Justice 
of the places which they had usually held in the Privy 
Council. There was much to be said for a change which 
separated the judiciary from the executive, but its effect 
was to make the Privj^ Council more and more a body of 
royal officials, and the appointment of five Bishops as 
Privy Councillors was a further step in the same direction. 
So complete was the control of the King over the Council, 
and so great were the powers of that body, that it is 
difficult to understand why Charles proposed to institute 
a permanent "Commission of Grievances," with powers 
analogous to those of the Enghsh Star Chamber, unless, 
indeed, the suggestion was made to provide something 
to give way on. The abandonment of the scheme did 
little to conciliate an opposition which was fast becoming 

It was at this moment that Charles commenced his 
ecclesiastical revolution. The people had already shown 



that they were not prepared to acquiesce in the royal 
government of the Church, and they were soon to prove 
their readiness to resist the King's pretensions on the 
battle-field. To this extent they were the champions of 
freedom. Yet, as we have seen, the ecclesiastical leaders 
w^ere themselves committed to a propaganda of in- 
tolerance, and in the heat of the coming warfare the 
moderates were to go under. Much had to be done 
and suffered before the nation learned what manner of 
spirit it was of. But in the making of modern Scotland 
this is the foremost fact — that, right or wrong, inspired 
by the Spirit of Christ or by the ambitions of the disciples 
whom He rebuked, our seventeenth-century ancestors 
were determined to decide, without compulsion from 
without, the manner in which they were to worship 

In his struggle over the Act of Revocation Charles 
had preferred an immediate triumph to a settlement by 
something like mutual consent. The impatience which 
marred the skill of his nephew. Prince Rupert, as a 
miUtary commander was the great tactical disquaHfica- 
tion of King Charles as a pohtical leader. He never 
learned to wait. Satisfied of the integrity of his own 
intentions, he was unduly contemptuous of the con- 
scientious opposition they evoked, and heedless of the 
misrepresentations which they frequently invited. Nor 
did he realize in time that his tw^o kingdoms had become, 
in one sense, united, though not as his father had pro- 
posed to unite them. The growing Puritan part}^ in 
England had found, temporarily, but none the less really, 
that the Presbyterians of Scotland were their brethren 
in the Lord. The movement which ultimately brought 
about the Civil War was an Anglo-Scottish league, inspired 
by the fear of Popery. The Solemn League and Covenant 
between the two kingdoms was afterwards to assume a 



definite form, but the written documents mark not the 
beginning, but the end of the great Puritan association 
in which England and Scotland were alike concerned. 
The constitutional disputes between James and the 
Commons had been followed with a surprising amount of 
interest in Scotland : in the religious discussions of the 
early Parliaments of Charles the Scots were deeply con- 
cerned. They resented the want of success in the 
German War and in the Spanish War, and they shared 
the general indignation at the lending of English ships 
to Richelieu, and the subsequent failures before La 
Rochelle. For the King's financial and other difficulties 
they made no allowance. Above all, they distrusted 
Buckingham, and believed that he was inspiring the King 
to betray his trust as a Protestant Sovereign, " for he 
was a patron of all Papists, and a great enemie to all that 
had any smak of religion." 

With this record behind him, Charles, who had for 
four years been governing England without a Parlia- 
ment, paid his first royal visit to Scotland in 1633, and 
was crowned at Edinburgh. Seventeen years earlier, 
James had shocked Scottish feeling by his carvings of 
Apostles and patriarchs ; Charles brought a rich tapestry 
" wherein the crucifix was curiously wrought," and to this 
crucifix the Bishops were seen to bow the knee. Laud, 
at this time Bishop of London, accompanied the King, 
and Laud was known in Scotland, as well as in England, 
to be the leader of the party suspected of Romanizing 
tendencies. "If ye part his religion in four," it was 
said in Scotland, " twa parts was Arminian, a third part 
Poperie, and scarce a fourth part was Protestant." The 
impression that he was at heart a Papist was increased 
by his refusal to swear to defend " the true Protestant 
Reformed Religion," as an honorary burgess of Perth, 
and by his famous remark when someone, looking at the 


Born 1G12, hanged 1C50. 
From the painting by Honthorst in the possession of the Earl of Dalliousie. 



Cathedral of Dunblane, lamented the " brave kirk " it 
had been before the Reformation : " What, fellow ?" said 
Laud. " Deformation, not Reformation !" To the 
modern historian, as to the contemporary observer, Laud 
is the impressive figure in that memorable visit, and his 
presence can scarcely fail to be connected with the exalta- 
tion of the episcopate which was at this moment the 
characteristic note of the King's policy. In the Scottish 
Parhament, by an arrangement which can be traced back 
to the reign of Queen Mary, and which received a further 
development in 1612 from King James, the Lords of the 
Articles were elected by a different Estate from that 
which they represented. The lords temporal chose eight 
lords spiritual to sit on the Articles ; these eight Bishops 
selected eight lords temporal, and the sixteen elected 
eight country gentlemen and eight burgesses. The lords 
spiritual formed the Estate which the King could trust 
most implicitly, and it was certain that the eight Bishops 
would make a choice of eight obedient nobles. In addi- 
tion to these thirty-two elected members, there were 
eight great officers of State, and their presence reduced 
any possible minority to insignificance. The Bishops 
were the mainspring of the whole arrangement, a circum- 
stance which impressed Laud so deeply that he regarded 
the Bishops' War as largely a protest against episcopal 
domination in the Estates. The Bills passed by the 
Articles in 1633 included one which gave legislative 
sanction to the Act of Revocation, and others which were 
intended to facilitate the King's religious policy. Charles 
forbade any discussion in full Parliament, and insisted, 
in spite of some protestation, that the Bills should be 
voted en bloc. Before the protest could be officially 
made, Charles dissolved Parliament. The scene is 
described by Row,* the Presbyterian historian : 

* John Row, born 1568, died 1646. 





" And when the Articles came to be voted, the King 
perceaving that there would be some contrare to them, 
taketh a pen, and with his awin hand (an uncouth prac- 
tise) noted the votes, whereby (no doubt) many were 
afraid to vote as otherwise they intended to doe. . . . 
Some of the nobilitie voted speciallie aganis the Articles 
concluded against the Kirk's bussines, but would have 
consented to other articles . . . yet being all putt 
together (a frequent Satanicall trick of Bishops), they 
behoved either to vote aganis all or then consent to all." 

The ayes had it. " The Parliament ending to the 
King's contentment, the cannons shott in abundance 
from the Castell." The Bishops had successfully manipu- 
lated the Estates, and the triumph was not less theirs 
than the Kmg's. Next year a new diocese of Edinburgh 
was created, and St. Giles was converted into " one fair 
spacious Cathedrall kirk " by the destruction of a par- 
tition wall which had been built half a century before. 
The new Bishop, William Forbes, was a man of learning 
and charity, but he created, in the few weeks he lived to 
hold the office, something like consternation, by preaching 
that " a Papist living and dying such may be saved," 
and that " Christ died for all intentionallie to redeem all." 
In 1635 Charles appointed Archbishop Spottiswoode as 
Chancellor of the kingdom, " ane rare thing, the lyke 
whereof had not been seen since the Reformation of 
Religion." It was a blow aimed at the nobility, who, 
since the Act of Revocation had given signs of restless- 
ness, and the new Chancellor improved the occasion by 
pressing on a prosecution which had been instituted 
against Lord Balmerino for high treason in concealing 
a copy of a protest against the proceedings in the late 
Parliament. Balmerino was found guilty by a majority 
of the jury, but was released after a short imprisonment. 
*' It had been a great wrong and injustice," Laud was 
reported to have said, " to have taken this nobleman's 



life." The new Archbishop of Canterbury had no great 
faith in the wisdom of the Bishops of Scotland. 

By all classes in Scotland the Government of Charles I. 
was now regarded as the rule of the Bishops, and the 
anti-episcopal feeling increased in intensity. But re- 
bellion is a last resort, and Charles and Laud had yet to 
convince the nation of its necessity. James, though he 
had done his best to enforce the Five Articles of Perth, 
had been wise enough to drop his proposals for a new 
liturgy, though they had received the sanction of the 
Assembly of 1616, and he had refrained from ordering 
the ministers to wear surplices, although an Act of 
Parliament of 1609 had given him authority over " the 
apparel of Kirkmen." King James's Act did not go into 
detail, but when it was confirmed for King Charles in 
1633 it contained a provision that all ministers should 
wear surplices for christening, burying, and administering 
the Sacrament of the Lord's Table. So great was the 
horror of the surplice that men began to talk of " blessed 
King James " who in his great wisdom had forborne to 
issue any such order. The fresh powers which Charles 
conferred on the Court of High Commission in 1634 
must be used to the utmost if this Act was to be enforced. 
New duties were imposed upon it in 1635-36 by the 
issue of a Book of Canons, published by royal authority, 
and sanctioned neither by Parhament nor by Assembly. 
These new constitutions depended for their validity 
on the Royal Headship of the Church, and were based 
on the acceptance of an episcopal government, quite 
unlike the compromise which James had effected. They 
introduced the new office of a " preaching deacon," 
forbade all "unlawful conventicles," and left no room 
for the regular courts of the Church. The framework of 
the existing Church was thus destroyed, and there were 
numerous regulations which interfered with its accustomed 



order and ritual. Every preacher must be licensed by 
the Bishop ; Holy Communion must be administered at 
Easter ; no minister might presume " to conceive a prayer 
ex tempore under pain of deprivation " ; Communion 
must be celebrated not before the pulpit but in the 
chancel. The magnitude of these changes may be 
judged from the fact that the law about kneeling at 
Communion had, except in Aberdeen, been widely 
ignored. In 1627 Row records that on Easter Sunday 
at Edinburgh " there were not above six or seven persons 
in all the town that kneeled, also some of the ministers 
kneeled not." 

The Service Book, the use of which was enforced by 
the Canons, appeared in the summer of 1637. It had 
been known for seven or eight years that Charles con- 
templated its preparation, and it was generally believed 
to be the work of Laud. It was the English Prayer-Book, 
with a considerable number of minor alterations, and in 
some important respects it followed the First, instead of 
the Second Prayer-Book of Edward VI. Its deviations 
from the Elizabethan book were interpreted as sure 
signs of Popery, and were ascribed to Laud. We have 
Laud's own statement that the modifications most 
bitterly resented were the work of two of the Scottish 
Bishops, and did not meet with his own approval, and 
that he himself disliked the introduction of the book 
without the sanction of a General Assembly. This could 
not be known at the time ; if it had been stated, it would 
probably not have been believed, for Laud's character 
was entirely misinterpreted ; if it had been known and 
believed it would only have proved that the Scottish 
Bishops were better Papists than Laud himself, a con- 
clusion not helpful to the book. As it was, " Laud's 
Liturgy " was received as the work of the great enemy 
of pure religion, and it was treated accordingly. Row's 



description of the Litany as " more like unto conjuring 
nor prayers " indicates the bitterness of the feeling, even 
when no doctrinal issue arose. The " Popish-IngHsh- 
Scottish-Masse-Service-Booke," he tells us, "is much 
more Popish nor the Inglish Booke, and much less 
Protestant, for severall words* in the Inglish Booke, 
which seem opposit to the corporall presence in the 
sacrament is left out in the Scottish Booke, and severall 
most Popish expressions are found in our book which 
are not at all in theirs." Row's punning challenge, 
" Let any one compare it with the Missale and they 
shall misse very little," may not have been consciously 
a caricature, for he was no expert in liturgical study, and 
it expresses the alarm of the time, an alarm closely con- 
nected with the similar disquietude prevailing in England. 
" Reconciliation with Popery is intended," wrote Samuel 
Rutherford from his Aberdeen prison, and Robert 
Baillie, lover of Bishops, was soon to have much before 
his eyes, in his Ayrshire manse, " the barricades of 
Paris, and the Catholick league of France." Baillie, as 
we have seen, was a Moderate, and he had opened the 
book in the hope of being able to accept it. "I am 
resolved," he wrote before its publication, " what I can 
digest as any ways tolerable with peace of conscience, 
not only in due time to receive myself, but to dispose 
others also, so far as I can by word and writ to receive 
quietly the same." His first perusal filled his mind with 
such a measure of grief that he was scarcely able to 
preach. Charles had alienated the middle party. 

The people of Edinburgh were extremists from of old, 
and the occasion of the reading of the new liturgy in 
St. Giles's Church on Sunday, July 23, 1637, is one of 

I.e., the second sentence in the words of administration of Holy 
Communion. The whole subject is discussed with much learning by 
the Kev. Professor Cooper in his edition of The Bool- of Common 
Frayer, commonly known as Laud's Liturgy, 1637." 



the most familiar scenes of Scottish history. The out- 
break has often been described as a protest against 
read prayers ; but the prayers in Knox's Book of Common 
Order were read daily in St. Giles's, and they were read 
as usual that Sunday morning at eight o'clock. At ten 
o'clock the Bishop of Edinburgh entered the pulpit, and 
the Dean sat in the Reader's Desk. Each carried a new 
Service Book. The Dean began to read, and there 
followed a riot, the details of which have come down to 
us in confused and contradictory fashion. Two points 
are clear. It was led by women, and it was an anti- 
Popery outburst. Baillie, who was in Edinburgh next 
day, says that the serving-maids began the tumult. 
They were accustomed to carry folding stools to church 
and to occupy them until their mistresses arrived in time 
to hear the sermon. We do not know who threw the 
first stool, nor is it certain that more than one stool was 
thrown ; but no stool hit either the Dean or Bishop, and 
the suggestion that the serving-maids were prentices in 
women's clothes may therefore be readily dismissed. 
The cries which have come down to us are all associated 
with the Pope and the Mass. " Rome is entered upon 
us !" " Baal is entered upon us !" shouted the women. 
" Darest thou read Mass in my lug ?" said one of them 
to a youth who gave an " Amen " as a response. Baillie, 
with all his forebodings, was astonished at the violence 
of public feeling. " The whole people thinks Popery at 
the doors ; the scandalous pamphlets which come daily 
new from England add oil to this flame ; no man may 
speak anything in public for the King's part, except he 
would have himself marked for a sacrifice to be killed one 
day. I think our people possessed with a bloody devil, 
far above anything that ever I could have imagined, 
though the Mass in Latin had been presented." 
The King and Privy Council alike failed to realize that 


a revolution had begun, and it is difficult to censure 
their blindness, for one of the mysteries of the story is 
the rapid development of an Edinburgh riot into a national 
crisis. Baillie thought that it was madness to resist 
authority, deplored the " un-Christian humour " of the 
mob, and regretted that the leading ministers were not 
sufficiently zealous in reproving " the devill of their 
furie." The day after the outburst, the Privy Council 
forbade any public meeting, and before the next Sunday 
came round the Bishops prohibited the use of either the 
old or the new Service Book on Sundays or weekdays 
" till the King's Majesty's mind be known in this late 
tumult." It was a sign of weakness, but the Bishops 
had reason to be terrified by the violence of the feeling 
against them. Charles refused to lighten their burden. 
He ordered the Privy Council to punish the rioters, and 
the Bishops to proceed with the Service Book. Sunday, 
August 13, was appointed for its next public use, but by 
this time the movement had spread so widely through- 
out the country that it was obviously unwise to risk 
another outbreak in the capital. The Privy Council 
itself was divided in feeling, and the magistrates of 
Edinburgh did not dare to punish the women. Every 
minister in Scotland had been ordered, under pain of 
outlawry, to use the Service Book, but by September 20 
the Privy Council was reduced to explaining that the 
Act referred " only to the buying, not reading," of the 
book, although Charles himself had just ordered strict 
conformity, and declined to consider an appeal for delay. 
Petitions were now succeeding riots as methods of protest, 
but the change did not make it any easier for the Govern- 
ment. Edinburgh was full of excited petitioners, and a 
document asking for relief " from the Service Book and 
all novations " was widely signed and conveyed to the 
King by the Duke of Lennox. Charles answered by 



ordering the removal of the Privy Council and the Court 
of Session from Edinburgh, and the suppression of a 
pamphlet against "the Inglish-Popish Ceremonies," and 
the Privy Council commanded all the petitioners to leave 
Edinburgh within twenty-four hours (October 18, 1637). 

This order brought matters to something like a crisis. 
Under the leadership of Alexander Henderson, who 
ministered to a Fifeshire congregation in the old Norman 
Church at Leuchars, a new petition was drawn up. It 
protested not merely against the Service Book, but also 
against the Bishops, as the real authors of the disturb- 
ances. A great meeting was summoned at Edinburgh 
for November 15, but before that day came, the Privy 
Council, sitting at Linlithgow, made an agreement which 
lessened the number of strangers in Edinburgh, but gave 
something like official recognition to the protesters. It 
was suggested that the " great convocations " of peti- 
tioners should cease, and that representatives should be 
appointed. The method by which this was done indi- 
cates how national was the feeling, for the crowds who 
had flocked into Edinburgh behaved as if they were the 
Estates of the realm. " Each rank choosed commis- 
sioners . . . noblemen by themselves, the gentrie by 
themselves, the burrows by themselves, the ministers by 
themselves." They secured the Parliament House for 
their meetings, " sitting in four severall rooms at severall 
tables : hence they were called The Tables." A new 
executive machinery had been created. The King's 
answer to the petition came early in December. It 
declined to discuss the questions at issue while the royal 
authority was contemned, and it declared the royal 
abhorrence of Popery. The Tables replied by a demand 
for the removal of the Bishops from the Council, " seeing 
no man can be both judge and party." Charles would 
hear of no concession, and threatened The Tables with 


the penalties of treason. With scarcely a day's delaj^ 
they determined to adopt the ancient device of a Band or 
Covenant, familiar in the baronial intrigues of the Middle 
Ages, and possessing a nobler association with the his- 
tory of the Reformation. 

The King's threat had been proclaimed at Stirling on 
February 19, 1638. On the 22nd, "an advertisement 
was sent through all the kingdom, that all who loved the 
cause of God would repair to Edinburgh for prosecuting 
the course of intended Reformation which now they had 
taken in hand." Five days later the National Covenant 
was ready for signature. It was no new document, and 
the insistence upon an appearance of legality which 
characterizles it is in full accordance with the revolu- 
tionary methods of the seventeenth century. The 
National Covenant of 1638 was the Negative or King's 
Covenant of 1581, subscribed by King James himself, 
and it was a Covenant against Popery. The younger 
John Row, who continued his father's history from 1637 
to 1639, made light of the denunciation of Popery which 
the King made in December, 1637. " The King needed 
not to clear himself of Popery, seeing that was not called 
in question." The ecclesiastical leaders who brought 
about the National Covenant could not afford to make 
such a concession. Popery was the cry which had least 
actual foundation, but which was best suited for their 
purpose. Their opponents must be identified with the 
Scarlet Woman. The real grievances, as it seems to us 
to-day, followed the recital of the King's Covenant. 
Recent ecclesiastical policy was shown to be incom- 
patible with it, and the Covenant must be interpreted 
and understood to condemn these " novations and evils 
no less than if every one of them had been expressed " 
in it. The subscribers solemnly bound themselves " by 
the Great Name of the Lord Our God ... to resist all 



these contrary errors and corruptions," and denied any 
intention " to attempt anything that may turn to the 
dishonour of God or to the diminution of the King's 
greatness and authority." It was a moment of strong 
emotion, and the Covenant was so drawn as to secure the 
largest possible amount of national support. " I do not 
only believe," wrote Baillie, " that there is no word in it 
that makes against the King's full authority, so far as 
either religion or reason can extend it, or against the 
office of Bishops, or any power they have by any lawful 
Assembly or Parliament, or that by this write we are 
obliged to oppose any novation, or anything at all which 
is not contrare to God's word ; not only I believe this, 
but has professed it so much before the whole meeting 
at Edinburgh, oft both in word and write, without the 
least appearance of contradiction of any." The National 
Covenant was in itself a comparatively moderate docu- 
ment, and it could be signed by many who had been 
content with the settlement of James VI. Nobody 
wanted to champion the unlucky Ser vice-Book. " An 
angel from heaven would not be tolerated in Scotland," 
said Baillie, "if he defiled paper by defending it." All 
that the Covenanters as yet demanded was freedom to 
decide their own form of worship in accordance with 
what they believed to be the will of God. On March 1 
the subscription began in Greyfriars' Church at Edin- 
burgh, and there and throughout a large portion of the 
country the Covenant was signed by multitudes. The 
Highlands, of course, knew nothing of it, and Epis- 
copalian Aberdeen refused to have anything to say 
to it. 

Moderate as were the terms of the Covenant, the 
Bishops dared not abide its signature, and Spottiswoode 
and most of his episcopal colleagues fled to England. 
They were doubtless wise, for few of the leaders of 


the opposition would have agreed with BaiUie that 
Episcopacy was still an open question. Charles, now 
thoroughly alarmed, appointed the Marquis of Hamilton 
as his Commissioner in Scotland, and, after some delay, 
authorized him to offer a compromise. " The King's 
will," says Baillie, speaking of September, 1638, "was 
exceedingly gracious in the most of our desires." The 
" unhappy books " were to be withdrawn ; the High 
Commission Court was to be abolished ; the Articles of 
Perth would be no longer insisted upon ; a free General 
Assembly and a Parliament were to meet " at the times 
and places we could have desired." Charles seemed to be 
ready to surrender all for which he had hitherto con- 
tended. But complete surrender was never Charles's 
way, and the object of his conciliatory measures was clear 
enough. " Only one thing affrayes us," Baillie con- 
tinues, " the subscription of another Covenant." Charles 
had decided that he must get rid of the National Covenant 
at any cost, and his aim was to persuade the Scots to 
accept another Covenant, also based upon the Covenant 
of 1581, but with a widely different conclusion. This 
new King's Covenant seemed, even to Baillie, to be "a 
very deep and dangerous plot," and the few who signed 
it were regarded as traitors to the cause. 

The promised General Assembly met in Glasgow in 
November, 1638. If there was any " packing " upon 
this occasion, it was the work of the King's opponents. 
Spalding, the Aberdeen chronicler, tells that some of the 
Aberdeen representatives did not dare to go to Glasgow, 
and asserts that the High Church (the Cathedral) in 
which the Assembly met " was straitly guarded by the 
town, and none had entrance but he who had a token of 
lead, declaring he was a Covenanter." There was in- 
tense excitement on the opening day. Some of the 
members made such " din and clamour in the house of the 



true God " as would have made Baillie send them down- 
stairs with some precipitancy in his own house. "It is 
here alone ... we might learn from Canterbury, yea, 
from the Pope, from the Turks or Pagans, modesty and 
manners." The excitement did not promise well for a 
calm consideration of the King's offer. The election of 
Alexander Henderson as Moderator gave Hamilton, the 
Commissioner, a foeman more than worthy of his steel ; 
and the presence of lay members, which the King had not 
contemplated, made it certain that no accommodation 
was possible. The crisis came almost at once, for the 
Assembly insisted on proceeding to the trial of the 
Bishops, who had, without the royal consent, been cited 
to appear, and who declined to recognize the jurisdiction 
of the Assembly. The Moderator put the question, 
"Are we the Bishops' judges ?" and before the vote was 
taken Hamilton made " a sad, grave, and sorrowful 
discourse. . . . This was the Commissioner's last pas- 
sage," says Baillie. " He acted it with tears, and drew, 
by his speech, water from many eyes, as I think ; well I 
wot much from mine ; for then I apprehended the cer- 
tainty inevitable of these tragedies which we are now in 
doing." Hamilton dissolved the Assembly in the King's 
name — precipitately, in Baillie' s opinion ; but it is diffi- 
cult to agree with Baillie that, if Hamilton " had brought 
his divines to dispute, and upholden their courage by 
his countenance, readily the most part might have been 
moved to use a greater temper [restraint] than ever 
thereafter can be hoped for." As he left them, Hamilton 
begged the Assembly not to prolong that day's sitting, 
but to close it with prayer, and take no irrevocable step 
till the morrow. " In this plot, as in many others, we 
disappointed his wisdom," says Baillie, and he adds that, 
if the members had not been well selected, a division of 
opinion would probably have arisen. " Here it was 


especiallie that the fruit of the wise election of the 
members of the AssembHe did kythe [appear]." 

The leaders, who had demanded a " free Assembly " 
had learned the lesson which James VL had taught them, 
and without a dissentient voice it was agreed to continue 
the meeting, and to proceed to the trial of the Bishops. 
They were all deposed, and many of them were excom- 
municated. Any scandal against their private character 
was greedily accepted. " No kinde of cryme which can 
be gotten proven of a Bishop will now be concealed," 
Baillie had written in anticipation of the trial. Ven- 
geance on the absent Bishops was the least important 
part of the work of the Assembly. All the legislation of 
James and Charles which aimed at the introduction of 
Episcopacy was swept away, and the acts of the last six 
General Assemblies were declared to be null and void. 
On December 20 the Assembly dissolved, singing the 
Psalm which recommends brethren to dwell together in 
unity. The complete victory of the extreme party had 
made war inevitable and immediate. 

The Scots were ready for war, and the King was not. 
The Tables had begun in March, 1638, to collect sub- 
scriptions, which were in many cases just as voluntary 
as the benevolences of the Tudor sovereigns of England. 
After the Glasgow Assembly, says Baillie, " in all the 
land we appointed noblemen and gentlemen for com- 
manders, divided so many as had been officers abroad 
among the shires, put all our men who could bear arms 
to frequent drillings." Among those who had been 
officers abroad was Alexander Leslie, who had earned 
distinction under Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and 
who became commander of the Covenanting Army. 
While Charles was stiU meditating his plan of campaign, 
Leslie captured Edinburgh Castle " in halfe ane hour " 
of a March afternoon (1639) ; Dumbarton fell after service 



on " a fasting Sunday Stirling was already in friendly 
hands. The great enemy in Scotland was the Marquis 
of Huntly, and the young Earl of Montrose was sent to 
meet him in Aberdeenshire. In the preceding summer, 
when the Covenant, already subscribed by thousands of 
willing hands, was being forced upon the recalcitrant, 
Montrose had attempted to compel the people of Aber- 
deen to accept it. Now he was armed with more con- 
vincing arguments. The city looked in vain to Huntly 
for protection, and on March 30 Montrose entered Aber- 
deen, from which its royalist scholars and divines had 
fled. " The discretion of that generous and noble youth 
was but too great," is BailHe's lament, as he records how 
" a great sum was named as a fine to that unnatural city, 
but all was forgiven." Huntly came to terms, and was 
taken a prisoner to Edinburgh, but his allies defeated 
some Covenanters at Turriff, and seized Aberdeen. The 
" Trot of Turriff " (May 14) was the first skirmish of the 
Great Civil War. On the 25th Aberdeen was again at 
Montrose's mercy, but he massacred only the dogs, 
which had been decorated with blue ribbons in derisive 
imitation of the Covenanting soldiers. 

While Montrose was converting the North, a well- 
trained Covenanting Army, with Leshe at its head, 
marched to Dunse Law, but did not cross the Border 
into England. Charles, with such forces as he could 
collect, had gone northwards to meet him, and in June 
the two armies were facing each other near Berwick. 
" Our Heutenants were almost all soldiers who had served 
oversea in good charges," says Baillie, and he tells how 
the whole army was resolute for battle. Each company 
had "a brave new colour," on which, over the arms of 
Scotland, were embroidered, in letters of gold, words to 
be memorable in Scottish story, For Christ's Crown and 
Covenant. The King's raw troops were no match for 


veterans of the German wars, but the Scottish leaders 
were anxious to avoid bloodshed. Baillie's reasons are 
interesting : " Had the King incurred any skaith [in- 
jury], or been disgraced with a shameful flight, our 
hearts had been broken for it, and Hkely all England 
behoved to have risen in revenge." There was a feeling 
that their English friends, " for all their good words long 
ago," were lukewarm in their cause. So they resolved 
to ask for terms. " Had we been ten times victorious in 
set battles, it was our conclusion to have laid down our 
arms at his feet, and on our knees presented nought but 
our first supplications. We had no other end of our 
wars ; we sought no crowns, we aimed not at lands and 
honours ; we desired but to keep our own in the service 
of our Prince. ... Had our throne been void, and our 
voices sought for the filling of Fergus's chair, we would 
have died ere any other had sitten down on that fatal 
marble but Charles alone." * Between such loyal rebels 
and a Sovereign in Charles's straits some agreement 
must be possible, though it might prove to be tem- 
porary, and on June 18 they entered into the Pacifica- 
tion of Berwick. Both armies were to be disbanded, 
but no question was settled. A General Assembly and 
a Parliament were to meet in August ; the day of reckon- 
ing was postponed. It was an evil omen that while the 
Pacification was being signed, Montrose was defeating 
the Gordons at the Bridge of Dee. For the third time 
that year he spared the town of Aberdeen. " For all our 
sparing, yet that country's malicious disloyalty seems 
not to be remedied," is Baillie's lament. Scotland was 
not united. 

Assembly and Parliament met, but the situation was 
not altered. The Assembly ratified all that the Glasgow 
Assembly had done, and Parliament ratified the Acts of 

* Baillie's Letters and Journals, i., p. 215. 



Assembly. The King attempted an unusually futile 
manoeuvre. He gave his sanction to the decisions of the 
Assembly, but refused the royal assent to the Bills passed 
by Parliament to rescind the Acts that established 
Episcopacy. Charles was reserving a weapon against a 
day that was never to arrive — the day when an English 
Parliament would help him to coerce Scotland. The 
Assembly of 1639 is memorable for a development in 
Presbyterian policy which deprived the National Covenant 
of much of its nobihty of spirit. It seemed to the leaders of 
the Church to be the natural and logical result of the royal 
concessions that the King and the whole nation should 
be united in one irrevocable covenant with the Almighty, 
and the Assembly asked the Privy Council to decree that 
the Covenant " should be subscribed by all the King's 
subjects of what rank or quality soever." The con- 
stitutional sentiments of which much had been heard in 
recent years would suggest that the Scottish Parliament 
was the proper authority to enact such a resolution, and 
the Estates had yet to meet. But to bring the question 
before Parliament would have been to run the risk of 
defeat, and the concurrence of the Council was assured. 
" Many thought the King did well, as also the Council, 
for to make a virtue of necessity," says Gordon, the 
royalist historian, but this consideration brought small 
comfort to his beloved city of Aberdeen. Through the 
year 1640, the process of compelling subscription went 
on, and the University of Aberdeen (King's College) was 
" purged " of the Episcopahan leaven — " these eminent 
divines of Aberdeen, either dead, deposed, or banished, 
in whom fell more learning than was left behind in all 
Scotland besides at that time." The unhappy expedient 
of expelling University teachers and parish ministers for 
nonconformity was adopted, on a large scale, by the 
Presbyterian leaders. Military forces, under the Earl 


Marischal and General Monro, were sent to Aberdeen, 
and the Earl of Argyll subdued a portion of the High- 

While the Covenanters were dragooning Scottish 
recusants into submission, the second Bishops' War 
broke out, and, as in the previous year, Leslie's army 
could meet the King on more than equal terms. The 
Short Parliament had failed to supply Charles with men 
or money. England was clearly friendly, and the army 
of the Covenant adopted a bolder strategy than in 1639. 
On August 20, Leslie and Montrose crossed the Tweed, 
easily dispersed a royalist force at Newburn, and entered 
Newcastle, where the Scots lived for many months " at 
ease and peace " on contributions extorted from the city, 
the county of Northumberland, and the Bishopric of 
Durham. The possession of Newcastle enabled them to 
control the London coal-supply for the coming winter, 
and their presence in the North of England gave the King 
no choice but to summon the Long Parliament. Mean- 
while, Charles agreed at Ripon that the Scots should 
remain at Newcastle, drawing their provisions as before, 
until a final agreement should be made. The King and 
his advisers hoped that the House of Commons and the 
City of London would be alarmed by a Scottish invasion, 
and would support him in his attempt to get rid of them 
on the best terms. But the Commons regarded the 
Scottish army in the North as the strongest guarantee 
of English liberties, and the Londoners refused to be 
terrified by the peril to their coal-supply. Scottish Com- 
missioners, including Alexander Henderson and Robert 
Baillie, came to London in November, 1640. They were 
in close contact with the Presbyterian party in the Com- 
mons and in the City of London, whose strength was out 
of all proportion to that of Presbyterians in the country 
generally. "All here are wearie of Bishops," wrote 



Baillie on his arrival. " The Bishops will go through 
Westminster Hall . . . and no man cap to them. God 
is making here a new world." The great events which the 
Scottish Commissioners witnessed during their residence 
in London all seemed to them to point to the same con- 
clusion. They saw the destruction of the machinery of 
prerogative government by the abolition of the three 
Courts of Star Chamber, High Commission, and the 
Council of the North. They watched the trial of Straf- 
ford, of which Baillie has left a memorable record, and 
rejoiced in his execution. They heard of the impeach- 
ment of Laud with contemptuous indifference. " As 

for poor Canterburie, he is so contemptible that all casts 
him by out of their thoughts." They had pleasant con- 
versation with " that sweet Prince," and hoped to supply 
him with better advisers. Their own negotiations were 
protracted, partly because the English Commons were 
determined that the Scots army should not be disbanded 
while Strafford's head was on his shoulders. After his 
death, it became almost equally desirable that the dis- 
bandment should take place before Charles paid his pro- 
posed visit to Scotland, and the treaty was ratified in 
August. All the Scottish demands were conceded, and 
the expenses of their army were paid. 
On his return from London, Alexander Henderson 


presided over a General Assembly at Edinburgh, and on 
July 28, 1641, he enunciated a policy which was inspired 
by his experience in London, and was destined to create 
a chapter of British history. " The Moderator did fall 
on a notable motion, of drawing up a Confession of Faith, 
a Catechism, a Directory for all parts of the public 
worship, and a Platform of Government, wherein possibly 
England and we might agree." The idea was eagerly 
welcomed, and in that hour was begotten the Solemn 
League and Covenant. 



The Scots, having enforced the Covenant on those 
portions of Scotland which they knew to be Episcopahan, 
were now ready to aid in compelHng assent to it in 
England, which they believed to be Presbyterian. The 
error into which Henderson and Baillie had been led by 
their London experiences was a natural one, but behind 
it lay the fatal delusion that truth can prevail only when 
the sword is on its side. The framers of the National 
Covenant boasted of " a willing people in the day of Thy 
power " ; when they proceeded to compel involuntary sig- 
natures to a solemn pact with the Almighty, they entered 
upon a path that led to misery and defeat. The weapons 
which had just proved powerless in the King's hands could 
only be temporarily effectual in their own, and were to be 
worse than useless when they were forced, two years later, 
upon an English Parliament which was already losing 
the strength to wield them. 

The General Assembly of 1641 had scarcely risen when 
Charles entered Edinburgh. In spite of the efforts alike 
of the English Commons and of the Scottish Commis- 
sioners, he had achieved his object of reaching Scotland 
while the Scots still possessed an army in being ; but 
this was the sole success of his visit. He arrived at 
Edinburgh on a Saturday (August 14) ; next morning 
Henderson preached him " a good sermon " at Holy- 




rood, and reproved him for not returning to hear another 
in the afternoon. " He promised not to do so again," 
went to prayers regularly twice a day, and never hinted 
at the " want of a Liturgy or any Ceremonies." Compli- 
ance was the note of his visit. He ratified, with what 
was regarded as undue haste, everything that required 
ratification ; the Covenant, with the oath and bond 
against which he had striven so desperately, was read, 
in his presence and approved ; he yielded to a demand 
that the Officers of State, the Privy Council, and the 
Lords of Session should be appointed with the sanction 
of the Estates. There was a scramble for the great 
offices, and a scramble for the lands of Bishoprics, but 
Charles gained nothing from neither. He never had any 
chance of obtaining the assistance he wanted against 
the English, for the Scots were waiting " till we see what 
the Lord will do in England " before considering the 
details of their own ecclesiastical settlement, and a single 
mysterious occurrence deprived him of any chance of 
forming a Royalist party in the North. Montrose had 
now gone over to the King's side, and was a prisoner in 
Edinburgh Castle. Scotland was then, and has been 
ever since, divided upon the question of his motives ; for 
ourselves we are willing to accept the considered judg- 
ment of the great English historian, whose patience and 
tolerance have added so much to our knowledge of this 
period of Scottish history : 

" Montrose saw in the political predominance of the 
Presbyterian clergy all that he had detested in the 
political predominance of the Bishops, and he saw that 
Argyll was seizing under Parliamentary forms that 
usurped supremacy of a subject which he had detected 
in Hamilton when he had managed Scotland under the 
forms of monarchy as the favourite of the King. His 
own position and character alienated him from the 
dominant party. As a nobleman whose influence and 



estates could never vie with those of the greatest land- 
owners, he scorned to submit to the Argylls and Hamil- 
tons, whose estates were far more extended than his own, 
and he found himself in unison with other nobles of the 
second class, not only in repudiating their authority, but 
in wishing to emancipate the life and mind of Scotland 
from the grinding pressure of the Presbyterian clergy, of 
which the greater nobles were able to make use. Mont- 
rose, in short, was attempting to anticipate the freer life 
of modern Scotland."* 

Montrose had left the Covenanters, but Hamilton had 
joined them and had taken the Covenant. One October 
day, while Charles was at Holyrood, it was rumoured all 
over Edinburgh that a plot had just been discovered for 
the kidnapping and possible murder of Hamilton, his 
brother, the Earl of Lanark, and Argyll. Next day, the 
three fled from Edinburgh, Charles went to the Parlia- 
ment House, " complained much of the vile slander 
Hamilton's needless flight and fear had brought upon 
him," and demanded an immediate trial in open Parlia- 
ment. A committee of investigation was appointed. It 
" found nothing that touched the King," but the mystery 
was never solved, and remains insoluble. The news of 
the Irish Rebellion put an end to the discussion of " the 
Incident," and Charles prepared to leave Scotland. 
Argyll returned to Edinburgh and was made a Marquis ; 
Alexander Leslie became Earl of Leven. There was 
something in the nature of a general amnesty, and Mont- 
rose was released from his prison. 

On November 18 Charles took his departure from 
Edinburgh, leaving his opponents laden with honours 
and the spoils of the Bishoprics, and supreme in the 
State. For the next two years the Scottish chroniclers 
are chiefly interested in the course of events in England. 

* H. K. Gardiner's article on Montrose in the Dictionary of National 


The local Church Courts expended great energy in the 
persecution of Papists, and the General Assembly of 
1642 significantly prayed for uniformity of reHgion 
throughout His Majesty's three kingdoms. It appointed 
a commission to represent ecclesiastical interests in 
negotiations with the King, and to act with the Privy 
Council and the " Conservators of Peace," appointed by 
the Parhament. Both the King and the English Parlia- 
ment desired to secure assistance from Scotland, and the 
result of their communications was a feeble effort at 
mediation on the part of the Scots in the beginning of 
1643. They found both parties " intractable," complains 
Baillie, innocently wondering at the wilful perversity of 
human nature. Montrose, who knew what the end must 
be, went to see the Queen at York and offered to secure 
Scotland for the King while yet there was time, but 
Charles decided to trust to the diplomacy of Hamilton, who 
was again his agent in Edinburgh. What Montrose had 
foreseen soon came to pass. In the summer of 1643 a 
Convention of the Estates of Scotland met at Edinburgh 
without the royal sanction. The English Parliament 
invited the " Christian wisdom and brotherly affection 
of the Scottish nation and State to consider how by their 
concurrent advice and assistance the faction of Popish 
Bishops and other malignants of this kingdom may be 
suppressed," and announced the summoning of an 
Assembly of Divines at Westminster to bring about " the 
reformation in Church ceremonies and discipline so much 
longed for." Learned and godly divines from Scotland 
were invited to take parts in its deliberations. The 
General Assembly met in the beginning of August, and 
Parliament and Assembly alike discussed the English 
proposals. English Commissioners came to Edinburgh, 
and the essential difference between the two countries 
soon became apparent. " The English," says Baillie, 



" were for a civil League, we for a religious Covenant." 
The alliance could not be maintained for constructive 
purposes, though for a time it might meet the necessities 
of the English Parliament, which was now in grave need 
of military assistance. The Scots were not prepared to 
take up the original quarrel of the Parliament with the 
King, they even talked of entering England as " friends 
to both, without siding altogether with the Parliament." 
But they were prepared to fight for the cause of cove- 
nanted uniformity between the two kingdoms. That, 
or nothing, the English must accept. Alarmed by the 
recent successes of the Royalists, they did accept it, and 
the Scots got their full price — on paper. The Solemn 
League and Covenant bound the three nations of England, 
Scotland^ and Ireland to swear, " each one of us for 
himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High God," 
to " endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the 
three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity 
in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, 
directory for worship and catechidng " ; to " endeavour 
the extirpation " of Popery, Prelacy, and schism ; to 
" preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and 
authority in the preservation and defence of the true 
religion, and liberties of the kingdoms " ; and to bring to 
trial and " condign punishment " all enemies of the 
Solemn League and Covenant. It was ratified by the 
Parliament and by the Assembly of Divines at West- 
minster and " ordained to be solemnly taken in all places 
throughout the Kingdom of England and the Dominion 
of Wales. ' ' The General Assembly saw to its subscription 
in Scotland. 

In return for this concession the Scots agreed to send 
an army of over 20,000 men into England, the cost of its 
maintenance being paid by the English. They did not 
underestimate the value of their assistance. " Surely," 



says Baillie, " it was a great act of faith in God, and huge 
courage and unheard of compassion, that moved our 
nation to hazlard their own peace and venture their lives 
and all, for to save a people irrecoverably ruined both in 
their own and all the world's eyes." Leven's army 
entered England on January 19. By that date the 
Scottish divines had been at Westminster for some 
months. Henderson and Baillie were of the number, 
and Baillie's letters show us how it was gradually borne 
in upon him that if Presbytery were to be established in 
England at all it must be by a tour de force. The English 
divines were Parliamentary nominees, and the Commons 
watched the proceedings of the Assembly with a jealous 
eye. No political party in England had any intention 
of allowing Church Courts to obtain the powers they 
exercised in Scotland. The Scottish Assembly of 1643 
had opposed " the keeping of a door open in England 
to Independencie. In this we were peremptor." Now 
Baillie and his friends found that the " unhappie Inde- 
pendents " were likely " to spoil all." While the Scottish 
divines were struggling to prevent the Independents 
from " mangling " the rites of the Church, and were 
" disputing every inch of their ground," the Scottish army 
was obtaining no opportunity of distinguishing itself. 
The army leaders more than once found the explanation 
of their want of success in " God's anger at the Parlia- 
ment and Assembly for their neglect of establishing of 
religion." The divines interpreted otherwise the ways 
of Providence. "We oft told them the truth, we had no 
hope of any progress here, till God gave them victories, 
and then, we doubted not, all would run well both in 
Parliament and Assembly." The Parliament was be- 
ginning to question the Divine Right of Presbytery, when 
early in July (1644) came the good news of the victory 
of Marston Moor. " Behold, in a moment, when our 



credit was beginning sensibly to decay, God has come 
in." If Marston Moor was not entirely the work of " our 
army " as Baillie supposed, the Scots had contributed 
greatly to the success of the day, and it was in no small 
measure the result of their intervention that the North 
of England was now in the power of the ParHament. 
But Marston Moor did not solve the problems of the 
Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster. Months of debate 
had yet to elapse before the divines and the English 
Parliament could come to an agreement. In January, 
1645, the two Houses passed an ordinance approving the 
Assembly's Directory for Public Worship ; in the autumn 
they ordered the establishment of Presbyterian Govern- 
ment and discipline, but by this time power was already 
paissing away from the Parliament at Westminster, and 
the new rulers of England were the deadly enemies of 
covenanted uniformity. 

In the winter which followed the Battle of Marston 
Moor, fruitless negotiations with the King, known as 
the Treaty of Uxbridge, proved conclusively that there 
was no hope of peace on the terms which alone would 
satisfy the Scots. While the discussion was going on, 
the great step was taken which resulted in the military 
overthrow of the royalist party. Parliament, in 
February, 1645, sanctioned Cromwell's scheme for organ- 
ising an army on a New Model, and the Self-Denying 
Ordinance, which followed in April, effectually destroyed 
the control of the two Houses over the forces which 
fought in their name. In June the New Model Army, 
under Cromwell's leadership, gained the decisive victory 
of Naseby without Scottish help. " We hope the back 
of the malignant partie is broken," wrote Baillie when 
the news reached London ; " some feares the insolence of 
others, to whom alone the Lord has given the victory of 
that day." There was good reason for fear, for, on the 


battle-field of Naseby, Cromwell wrote some memorable 
words to the Speaker of the House of Commons : " Honest 
men served you faithfully in this action. ... He that 
ventures his life for the liberty of his country, I wish he 
trust God for the liberty of his conscience, and you for 
the liberty he fights for." The Scottish divines at West- 
minster had long known that Cromwell aimed at the 
toleration of Independents. Such a toleration was 
incompatible with the Solemn League and Covenant. It 
now seemed probable that he might be able to compel 
assent to his policy, and Baillie urged his countrymen to 
strong measures : "It was never more necessare to haste 
up all possible recruits to our army." Within three 
months of the date of Naseby a large portion of the army 
had to return to Scotland, and the Presbyterians in the 
Commons and in the City of London had soon to combat, 
unaided, with the new military force of Independency. 

The Scottish troops were recalled to defend the Low- 
lands of Scotland from the Royalists under Montrose. 
After the fulfilment of his prophecy, when Leven's army 
was already across the Tweed, Montrose had received 
from the King a commission as his Lieutenant-General in 
Scotland. In April, 1644, he occupied Dumfries, and 
made an unsuccessful attempt on the Lowlands. Charles 
showed his confidence by the gift of a Marquisate, and in 
August, Montrose, disguised as a groom, made his way, 
with two companions, from Carlisle to Perth. He failed 
to rouse the Gordons and the episcopal gentry of the 
north-east, but some 1,600 Irishmen flocked to his 
standard. Charles had arranged with the Marquis of 
Antrim to send an Irish army to Scotland, and this small 
force was the only result of the agreement. Many of 
them were of Scottish blood, and their commander was 
a Highland chief, Alastair Macdonald, who, as the repre- 
sentative of the Macdonalds of Islay, had a blood-feud 



with the Campbells of Argyll. Spalding, the Royalist 
historian of Aberdeen, relates how this " wise and valiant 
Macdonald," after ravaging forty miles of Campbell 
country, spared the town of Inverness, and made his 
way to Badenoch, where he increased his army by about 
a fourth. Montrose met him at Blair Athol, and obtained 
the support of some of the Perthshire clans who hated 
Argyll. There were now about 3,000 infantry at Mont- 
rose's disposal ; he immediately led them to attack a 
force, greatly superior in numbers, but in numbers alone, 
under Lord Elcho. On September 1 he gained his first 
victory at Tippermuir near Perth, and captured the tov^nci 
with " little debate and small blood." Some of the 
Highlanders who had recently joined him returned home, 
but their place was taken by Lowland gentlemen who 
had disapproved of Huntly's defection from the royal 
cause — among them, the Earl of Airlie and two of his 
sons. Montrose marched from Perth to Aberdeen, now 
under Covenanting government, and fought a battle in 
the streets of the city. So complete was the reversal of 
the circumstances of the beginning of the war that Lord 
Lewis Gordon was one of the leaders on the Covenanting 
side. Montrose had urged the magistrates to surrender, 
or, at all events, to send old men, women, and children to 
a place of safety. His letter closed with a warning that 
" those who stay expect no quarter," and when the 
fighting was over, he was either unable or unwilHng to 
restrain his followers. It was believed in Aberdeen that 
he had promised them the plunder of the town, and after 
the battle he "returned to his camp, leaving the Irish 
killing, robbing, and plundering ... at their pleasure. . . . 
The wife durst not cry nor weep at her husband's slaughter 
before her eyes, nor the mother for the son, nor daughter 
for father ; if they were heard, they were presently slain 
also." For three days the " savage Irish " worked their 


will, even while Montrose, at the market cross of this 
Royalist town, was making proclamation of letters 
patent which promised pardon to penitent subjects of the 

From Aberdeen Montrose moved by Rothiemurchus to 
Blair Athol, whence his ally, Macdonald, went to the 
West to obtain the assistance of some of the Macdonald 
clans. Argyll had followed Montrose to Aberdeen, 
where his men lived upon free quarter, " a new grief " to 
that unfortunate toT\Ti. From Aberdeen he continued 
his slow pursuit to Athol, whence his enemy turned 
eastward into Forfarshire, " where he purchased many 
friends," and traversed the Mearns to within a few miles 
of Aberdeen. Crossing the Dee near Drum, Montrose 
marched by IMonymusk to Strathbogie, and thence to 
Fyvie Castle. Argyll had made his way from Athol to 
the east coast and he led his large army by Aberdeen to 
Inverurie, where he heard that Montrose was at Fyvie. 
The scene now changes with marvellous rapidity. Argyll's 
attack was beaten off, and Montrose was back in Strath- 
bogie before it could be renewed — " a matter marvellous 
and wrought by God's own finger," says Spalding, who 
in spite of the sack of Aberdeen is proud of the exploits 
of " this vaUant, noble man mth so few men and wanting 
the assistance of his noble captain, Alexander Macdonald." 
The persistent Argyll followed up and wasted Strath- 
bogie, while Montrose rushed on to Athol ; then he gave 
up the pursuit, and returned to the more congenial 
atmosphere of a Provincial Assembly at Aberdeen, where 
a Covenanting army was quartered. " Thus are these 
northern parts grievously borne down ... by order of the 
Estates and good Argyll." From Aberdeen Argyll went 
to Edinburgh, where he " got small thanks for his service 
against Montrose." At Edinburgh he heard of Mont- 
rose's sudden descent into his own country. Macdonald 



had rejoined the great Marquis at Blair Athol, bringing 
with him a contingent of Western Highlanders who were, 
above all else,, the foes of the Campbells. For six weeks 
Montrose and his Macdonalds (Irish and Scottish) ravaged 
the Campbell country, and it was not until, in the end of 
January, he marched northwards towards Inverness, 
that Argyll saUied out of Inverarj- and took up a position 
at Inverlochy. Another army, under Lord Seaforth, was 
waiting for Montrose near Loch Ness, and, although 
Argyll's forces were about double his own, he turned 
southwards and made a rapid dash on the Campbells. 
The victory of Inverlochy dispersed not only Argyll's 
3,000 men, but Seaforth's 5,000, and Montrose sent the 
King, then engaged in the Uxbridge negotiations, a 
promise that by the end of the summer of 1645 he would 
leave a subdued Scotland to make the rebels in England 
" feel the just rewards of rebellion." 

From Inverlochy Montrose marched to Elgin, burning 
and plundering as he went. There he was joined by 
Seaforth and some of the Gordons. Aberdeen was once 
more in grave peril, but Montrose promised the terrified 
citizlens that they should suffer no further harm, and, 
without entering the town, he plundered the country 
from Elgin to Forfarshire. The Church excommunicated 
him, and the Estates " resolved to have him living or 
dead." They no longer trusted to the military capacity 
of Argyll, but sent two competent Generals, Baillie and 
Hurry, who barred Montrose's further progress. Sea- 
forth deserted him, and large numbers of the Highlanders 
returned home with their booty. With about 600 foot 
and 200 horse he seized Dundee. Bailhe was close at 
hand, with a large army, and it required all ^Montrose's 
skill to escape disaster. Leaving Dundee unspoiled, he 
hurried northwards by night, but, divining that Baillie 
would attempt to outmarch and intercept him, he turned 



back and made for the Perthshire hills, which he reached 
in safety. Baillie remained at Perth, and Hurry went 
to Inverness. Montrose, by another rapid movement, 
got out of Baillie's reach, and, reinforced by a body of 
Gordons, defeated Hurry at Auldearn (May 9), while 
Baillie ravaged Athol. Montrose then established him- 
self on Speyside, and after a dash into Forfarshire gave 
battle to BailHe at Alford on the Don (July 2), and 
completely defeated him. Reinforcements came from 
the Highlands, and at last Montrose was able to make 
his way to the centre of Scotland. At Kilsyth, on 
August 14, he defeated the Covenanters, his task being 
rendered easier by the amateur generalship of a Committee 
of the Estates, which had practically superseded Baillie. 
The victory became a massacre, and it was with difficulty 
that Montrose restrained his men from the sack of 

The news of Auldearn had led Leven to post his Scot- 
tish army idly in Westmorland during the campaign which 
preceded Naseby. Thence he had gone to the Siege of 
Hereford, and he was there when Montrose, by his 
victory at Kilsyth, made himself master of Scotland. It 
was immediately decided to raise the siege, for David 
Leslie, Leven's nephew, who had taken the Scottish 
cavalry to Nottingham in pursuit of the King, had 
marched with his whole force to meet Montrose, and 
Charles was now on his way to Hereford with 3,000 horse. 
Leven's recall to Scotland had been decided upon, when 
his nephew in one battle destroyed the power of Montrose. 
That power had shrunk to small proportions before 
David Leslie could reach Scotland. The Highlanders 
once more deserted him ; the Gordons again proved 
faithless. The Lowland and Border gentry who joined 
him brought no following with them. Undaunted, he 
made his way southwards to join the King, and on 



September 13, David Leslie, with 4,000 horse, found him 
at Philiphaugh, mth some 500 Irish foot-soldiers and 
double that number of cavalry. The Irishmen proved 
loyal, but only about 150 horsemen gave Montrose any 
real support, and after two brave charges he fled from the 
field. A butchery " more horrible than any that had 
followed upon any of Montrose's victories "* stained 
Leslie's laurels on his great day. An eye for an eye and a 
tooth for a tooth would have been a code of mercy at 
Phihphaugh. The defenders of Christ's Crown and 
Covenant slaughtered in cold blood 300 Irish women and 
children, and fifty soldiers whose hves they had promised 
to spare. Provocation had not been wanting, for Mont- 
rose's Irish had slain men " mth no more feeling of com- 
passion and with the same careless neglect that they kill 
a hen or capon for their supper," and the Ulster massacres 
had created a feehng against Irish Roman CathoUcs 
similar to that which in more recent days the massacre 
of Cawnpore aroused against the Sepoys. Yet mere 
revenge can never be justified, and it is not to the honour 
of Scotland that for the slaughter at Phihphaugh excuse 
and palhation have often taken the place of that " un- 
dying penalty which history has the power to inflict on 

The news of Philiphaugh came as " the great and 
seasonable mercies of God " to the Scottish divines at 
Westminster, and Robert Baillie — who, after the defeat 
of his namesake at Kilsyth, had been fearing for the 
safety of his dear ones at Glasgow — was now rejoicing in 
the hope that God would " call back the destroying angel 
and persecute the cruel enemy till he be no more." The 
prayer was answered, for Montrose was not again able to 
menace Covenanting Scotland ; and, though the English 
Royalists held out during the wdnter of 1645-46, they 

* Gardiner, Great Civil War, vol. ii., p. 356. 


JBorn L598, became leader of the Covenanters, supported the English Parliament during the 
Civil War ; beheaded in 1661. 

From the portrait in the possession of Sir William Gordon-Cumming, Bart. 


could not face a summer campaign. In May, 1646, the 
King surrendered to the Scottish army near Newark, and 
Baillie was confirmed in his belief that he would speedily 
see Presbytery " set up, in spite of the devil." There 
was now no delusion that England wanted the Covenant. 
Baillie was sure that it was a Divine thing, because " so 
much resistance was made to it by men of all sorts." 
But, apart altogether from the Royalist reaction which 
was coming, the Independents in the Army were by this 
time too strong for the Parliament, and the Independents 
hated the hierarchy of Church Courts and their control 
over personal morality as much as they hated Prelacy 
and Metropolitical Visitations. The one chance that 
remained to the Parfiament was to get rid of the Covenant, 
and to grant to Independents the toleration which the 
Scottish divines believed to be " the Devil's master- 
piece." If the two Houses had given security for liberty 
of conscience and arrears of pay, * the army would have 
remained their obedient servant to disband. They 
adopted no such poHcy. From the moment that the 
King became a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, in- 
tolerance grew stronger at Westminster. There was, of 
course, a chance that the King might accept at New- 
castle the terms that he had refused at Uxbridge. 
Through the summer of 1646, Baillie waited with anxious 
impatience for the news that Alexander Henderson had 
persuaded the King to take the Covenant. " The great 
God," he wrote to Henderson, " help you to soften that 
man's heart, lest he ruin himself and us with him." 
Time passed, and the Scottish representatives at West- 
minster became almost desperate, though Baillie, who 
could not bring himself to believe " that Episcopacy was 
ever adhered to on any conscience," hoped to the end 
that Charles would come to understand that " the 

* Cf, Firth's Cromwell, pp. 157, 158. 




Sectaries are his extremely malicious enemies." But 
Charles remained a "full Canterburian, " and before the 
end of 1646 it was clear that nothing could be expected 
from the conferences at Newcastle. The Scottish army, 
now thoroughly unpopular, could not remain in England, 
and to take the King to Scotland would have been to 
re-create the Royahst party north of the Tweed. The 
Scots might have let Charles escape, to return with what 
foreign aid he could, but they chose to surrender him to 
the EngHsh Parliament, on condition of being paid a 
portion of the arrears due to them. They were in a diffi- 
cult position, and it is not a pretty story ; but it is more 
just to say that the English bought him than that the 
Scots sold him. The agreement included a stipulation 
that no harm should come to the royal person. 

Covenanted Uniformity, for which the Scots had crossed 
the Tweed, was now just as Hkely to be estabhshed in 
England as it was in Ireland ; the Solemn League had 
provided for both. The Scottish divines brought from 
Westminster a Confession of Faith, which, when the long 
struggle ended with the Revolution, became legally bind- 
ing, in every detail, upon the Church, and remained so 
till the twentieth century ; a Directory for PubUc Wor- 
ship, which soon ceased to be followed ; an English 
metrical version of the Psalms, which has become dis- 
tinctly Scottish ; and two Catechisms, of which the 
shorter (prepared " for such as are of weaker capacity ") 
was to occupy so large a place in religious instruction 
that a knowledge of it became a test of Scottish 

" The Solemn League and Covenant 
Cost Scotland blood, cost Scotland tears." 

It is not easy to show, as Burns goes on to assert, that it 
brought also "sacred freedom," although this might be 
said of the National Covenant. The good which it accom- 



plished is perhaps not unfairly summarizJed in the theo- 
logical training and mental discipline of the Shorter 

We have not yet completed the tale of its blood and 
tears. In the spring of 1647, the English Parliament was 
made to understand its own impotence, and in June the 
person of the King was seized by the army. The Parlia- 
ment, in Baillie's view, became a committee of the army, 
and the Scots began to place their hopes in " the King's 
unparalleled wilfulness." The Heads of Proposals, offered 
by the army to the King, they regarded with horror, for 
it " gives to the King much of his desire in bringing back 
Bishops and Books, in putting down our Covenant and 
Presbytery, in giving ease to Malignants and Papists." 
Charles was foolish enough to refuse the great oppor- 
tunity offered him by the army, and he entered once 
more into negotiations with the Scots, who were united 
in their dislike to the turn that affairs had taken in 
England. " That Scotland at this time has a just cause 
of war against the sectarian army in England and their 
adherents, none of us doth question," says Baillie, speak- 
ing for the Covenanting party. But whether a war was 
expedient as well as just was a different question, and 
the answer depended upon the terms that could be 
obtained from the King, a prisoner in the Isle of Wight. 
Three Scottish Commissioners to the English Parliament 
(Loudoun, Lanark, and Lauderdale) persuaded Charles to 
agree to retain Presbytery in Scotland, to establish it 
in England for three years, and to persecute the Inde- 
pendents. With these promises they returned to Scot- 
land, to place before the Scottish Parliament proposals 
for an invasion of England. To Baillie and his friends 
it seemed that the Engagement (as the agreement was 
called) provided no " security for religion," and they 
pointed out that the King was " as much for Episcopacy 



and as averse from our Covenant as ever." They were, 
they said, " most cordial for a war against the sectaries 
of England for the vindication of our Covenant," but 
they would not join with Enghsh " Malignant s " to 
restore an uncovenanted Sovereign. The Estates thought 
otherwise. " Never so many noble men present in any of 
our Parliaments," says Baillie — "near fifty earls and 
lords. Among whom were but eight or nine for our 
way. . . . All the rest, with more than the half of the 
Barons [country gentlemen], and almost the half of the 
burgesses, especially the greater towns, Edinburgh, 
Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Linlithgow, ran 
in a string " in favour of the Engagement. Hamilton, 
now a Duke, was their leader. The Scottish nobles were 
doubtless alarmed by the progress of the Republican 
movement in England, and the attacks of the Levellers 
upon the House of Lords. The Act of Revocation was 
a thing of the past. Charles would never try to enforce 
it, and they might safely return to their allegiance. By 
a large majority, the Estates resolved to make war on 
England, if the helpless English Parliament should not 
immediately accomplish the release of the King and carry 
out the provisions of the Solemn League. Compulsory 
subscription had become the fashion of the day, and 
Hamilton's party passed an Act forcing " all the subjects 
of the kingdom to subscribe their readiness with life and 
estate to further the execution of the acts of this Parlia- 
ment . . . also to declare that the execution of the acts 
of this Parliament are the most necessary and fittest 
means to remeed our troubles and preserve religion." 
Those who, like Baillie, resolved " neither to join with 
maHgnants nor sectaries," were indeed apt to " fall into 
great inconvenients." 

The Engagement was bitterly and widely opposed 
throughout the country, but on July 8, 1648, Hamilton 



led an army of 10,000 men across the Border. Else- 
where in England there were Royalist movements, and 
Baillie feared that " the most that shall be obtained be 
but an Erastian weak Presbytery, with a toleration of 
Popery and Episcopacy at Court, and of diverse sects 
elsewhere." His fears were groundless, for in the middle 
of August Hamilton's partly untrained force was de- 
stroyed by Cromwell near Preston, and the second Civil 
War was at an end. Hamilton's defeat and capture 
destroyed the power of his party, but the Anti-Engagers 
or Protesters had only escaped contact with the Malig- 
nants to fall into the arms of the Sectaries, for Cromwell 
came to Edinburgh and had a friendly meeting with 
Argyll, as a result of which the Scottish Parliament, in 
January, 1649, passed an Act denouncing the Engage- 
ment, and distinguishing Four Classes of men unworthy 
of any public trust. In the first class were included 
officers of Hamilton's army and " promoters of the 
Engagement," along with those who took part in Mont- 
rose's " horrid rebellion." The Estates still hoped for a 
Covenanting settlement, and they insisted on the security 
of the King's person. 

The news of the death of King Charles I. was received 
with horror and indignation throughout Scotland, and 
the first act of the Estates was to hurl defiance at the 
Rump by immediately proclaiming his son as King 
Charles II. "To the great joy of all, in the midst of a 
very great and universal sorrow, we proclaimed the 
Prince King of Great Britain, France and Ireland." But 
the proclamation in itself meant little, and military 
successes against Scottish Royalists were still sought and 
welcomed by the Estates. The new King, if he were to 
receive more than an empty title, must take the Solemn 
League and Covenant. "If he will join with us in this 
one point, he will have all Scotland ready to sacrifice 



their lives for his service," wrote Baillie ; but his friend, 
the minister of the Scottish Church at Campvere, who 
had a long interview with the Prince of Orange, the 
young King's host at the Hague, had much difficulty in 
showing why a subscription to the National Covenant 
should not suffice for the people of Scotland. Charles 
himself thought a crown worth two Covenants, but he 
was anxious to avoid a disagreeable necessity if it was 
possible to do so. He fascinated Baillie, who, as one of 
the Assembly's Commissioners to the Hague, found him 
"of a very meek and equitable disposition," but so 
" firm to the tenets his education and company has 
planted in him " that he could not be brought to see the 
necessity of doing more than confirming all the Acts of 
the Scottish ParHament about the Covenant. " It were 
a thousand pities that so sweet a man should not be at 
one with all his people." Meanwhile Charles hoped for 
aid from Ireland, and even after Cromwell had destroyed 
the Royalist cause in that country there remained a 
chance that Montrose might repeat his exploits of 1644-45. 
In the spring of 1650, the great Marquis landed in Scot- 
land, but was defeated by David LesHe at Carbisdale, in 
Sutherland. On May 25 he was hanged in Edinburgh 
as an excommunicated traitor. " I blame no man," he 
said ; "I complain of no man. They are instruments. 
God, forgive them !" Later generations have found it 
harder to extend forgiveness to the men who persecuted 
and insulted in his last hours a brave and noble-minded 
foe ; to Argyll, who, coming to witness the shame of the 
enemy from whom he had fled at Inverlochy, dared not 
even now meet his gaz;e, and slunk away amid the jeers 
of the spectators ; or to the ministers and statesmen who 
failed to make his death ignominious, and who mutilated 
his dead body. Montrose died happy in the belief that 
the nation was fortunate in the young King for whom he 


suffered. " His commandments to me were most just ; 
in nothing that he promises will he fail ; he deals justly 
with all men." 

Huntly had preceded Montrose to the grave — he had 
been beheaded at Edinburgh in March — and Hamilton 
had suffered a similar fate in England. No choice was 
open to Charles, and on June 23, 1650, he landed at the 
mouth of the Spey, having subscribed both the National 
Covenant and the Solemn League. He bound himself, 
on his restoration to the English throne, to establish 
Presbytery in England and Ireland, as well as in Scotland. 
Deprived of most of the companions of his exile, he was 
brought through Aberdeen, where Montrose's arm was 
exposed upon the city gate, to the Palace of Falkland. 
Sermons innumerable were preached at him. Bishop 
Burnet remembered with horror one fast day when the 
King and he — then an undergraduate of eight — listened 
to six sermons without intermission. Dancing and cards 
were prohibited ; to walk abroad on Sunday was a sin. 
An army was being collected to defend the Covenanted 
King from the force with which Cromwell was now in- 
vading Scotland. " The King," says Burnet, " was 
suffered to come once and see it, but not to stay in it, for 
they were afraid he might gain too much upon the 
soldiers, so he was sent away." His sincerity was openly 
questioned, and satisfaction was found in a further royal 
declaration, in which he deplored his father's guilt for 
the blood that had been shed, and expressed detestation 
of the principles in which he had been nurtured. Callous 
as Charles was, he " was very uneasy when this was 
brought to him. He said he could never look his mother 
in the face if he passed it. But when he was told it was 
necessary for his affairs, he resolved to swallow the pill 
before further chewing it." 

Cromwell, with 16,000 men, was now facing David 


Leslie near Edinburgh. Leslie had an army considerably 
larger in size, but composed, according to a contemporary 
Scottish Royalist, chiefly of " ministers' sons, clerks, and 
such other sanctified creatures, who hardly ever saw or 
heard of any sword but that of the Spirit." Four 
thousand trained soldiers, says the same authoiity, had 
been expelled from the army in accordance with the Act 
of Classes. Meanwhile Cromwell was attempting to reach 
a pacific settlement, and he made an appeal to the clergy, 
in which is preserved one of his best-known sayings : 

" You take upon you to judge us in the things of our 
God, though you know us not. ... I am persuaded that 
divers of yon, who lead the people, have laboured to build 
yourselves in these things wherein you have censured 
others. ... Is it therefore infallibty agreeable to the 
Word of God, all that you say ? I beseech you in the 
bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. 
. . . There may be a Covenant made with, death and hell. 
I do not say yours was so. . . . I pray you read the 
twenty-eighth of Isaiah, from the fifth to the fifteenth 
verse. Aiid do not scorn to know that it is the Spirit 
that quickens and giveth life." 

Cromwell himself was not finding his task easy. He 
spent a month in trying to persuade Leslie to meet him 
in the open. Pro\4sions were scarce, and there was 
disease in his camp. He lost about 5,000 men before 
he retired to Dunbar. Leshe at once followed him, 
seized Doun Hill, and cut off his retreat to Berwick. If 
Cromwell should attempt to force the road to Berwick, 
Leslie would have him at his mercy. " Lj^ng here daily 
consumeth our men," wrote Cromwell, but he made no 
movement. It was beHeved in the Scottish camp that 
he was sending away his artillery by sea, and the clergy 
and the Parliamentary Committee forced Leslie to leave 
his strong position on Doun Hill, in order to prevent the 



escape of the enemy. " The Lord hath deHvered them 
into our hands," was Cromwell's comment on the 
manoeuvre. His warning from the Book of Isaiah was 
being fulfilled ; the priests and the prophets were erring 
in vision and stumbling in judgment ; the covenant with 
death was not to ward off the overflowing scourge. The 

The Battle of 

From C. H. Firth's Oliver Cromwell (Putnam's Sous). 

Scots made their fatal movement on the evening of 
September 2. On the morning of the 3rd, after a night 
of alarms, they found themselves in a position where 
defeat meant annihilation, for retreat was impossible. 
Cromwell succeeded in crossing the Brock Burn,* which 

* Cf. Professor Firth's account of Dunbar in Transactions of the 
Boyal Historical Society, New Series, vol. xiv. This may now be 
described as the received account of the battle. 



covered the Scottish left, and brought his force face to 
face with the enemy, who were now crowded in between 
the hill and the steep banks of the burn. By a feint on 
their left, he was able to take by surprise their centre 
and right. The Scottish superiority in numbers became 
a disadvantage in the narrow space, and, though some 
regiments stood their ground bravely, the horse on the 
Scottish right were soon broken, and the English, pene- 
trating the right wing, drove the Scottish infantry against 
the hill and the ravine of the Brock Burn. It had been a 
wet morning, but the sun broke out over the sea, and was 
hailed by Cromwell as a token of Divine favour. " Now 
let God arise, and His enemies shall be scattered," an 
English officer heard him shout. " I profess they run," 
he continued ; and the narrator tells how " they routed 
one another after we had done their work on the right 
wing." In the fight and the rout the Scots had lost 
between three and four thousand men ; two regiments had 
been cut down to a man in the last stand. Cromwell did 
not massacre his prisoners. Five thousand half -starved 
soldiers were sent to New England, and the other 5,000 
broken in health, were allowed to return home. 

The effect of Dunbar was to increase the division in the 
country. A Cromwelhan party appeared for the first 
time when Cromwell seized Edinburgh and Linlithgow, 
but sacked neither, and appealed to the Scots not to 
prefer Charles II. to " the peace and welfare of your 
country, the blood of your people, the love of men of the 
same faith with you, and the honour of that God we 
serve." A second party, not prepared to come to terms 
with Cromwell, held that the disaster at Dunbar was, 
like the defeat at Preston, a judgement from God. There 
was a general feeling that this must be true, and the 
judgement was officially attributed to insufficient care in 
" purging " the King's household ; but the extremists 


went farther than this, and attacked the King himself. 
The soldiers of the Covenant had been fighting for a 
monarch the " reality of whose profession " was more 
than doubtful, whose " whole deportment and private 
conversation showed a secret enmity to the work of 
God." This second party became known as the Pro- 
testers or Remonstrants, because they issued a protest 
or remonstrance (October, 1650) against some "public 
resolutions " proposed in the Estates at Perth for the 
admission of Malignants and Engagers to offices in the 
army and the State. The Remonstrants were strong 
among the extreme Covenanters of the south-west, and 
they raised a considerable force and kept it in arms, ahke 
against Leslie and against Cromwell. It was defeated 
by Lambert at Hamilton on December 1, 1650. The 
refusal of the Remonstrants to acknowledge Charles com- 
pelled Argyll and the " Resolutioners " to go farther than 
they had intended to do in the recognition, not only of 
Engagers, but of the old Royalists. The Act of Classes 
was not rescinded till June, 1651, but by the end of the 
previous year so many exceptions had been admitted 
by the Estates that it had practically become a dead 
letter. Cromwell had foreseen this result. "It's prob- 
able," he wrote, the day after the Battle of Dunbar, " the 
Kirk has done their do. I believe the King will set up 
upon his own score now, wherein he will find many 
friends." The public resolutions were gradually enabling 
Charles to set up upon his own score, but the preachers 
had a final field-day at his coronation, which took place 
at Scone on January 1. Charles gave an assurance that 
he wished " to live no longer than to see religion and this 
kingdom flourish in all happiness," and Argyll placed 
the crown on his head. There was no anointing, that 
ceremony being " probably not absolutely necessary 
under the Old Testament, and therefore far less under the 



Newj" ; but a long sermon was preached by Robert 
Douglas, one of Baillie's colleagues at Westminster, who 
liked to imagine that he was descended from Queen Mary 
and a Douglas of Lochleven. He showed how " the 
house of our King hath been much defiled by idolatry," 
and pointed the moral that the godly King Asa, " when 
he entered in covenant, spared not his mother's idolatry," 
and he related the " foul defection " of James VI., who 
" laid the foundation whereon his son, our late King, did 
build much mischief to religion all the days of his life." 

Charles was soon to be free from this kind of sermon. 
Argyll and his friends quarrelled among themselves ; the 
constant influx of old Royalists strengthened the King, 
and in March the Parliament asked him to take com- 
mand of the army. When the Act of Classes was re- 
scinded, the Covenanted King became the leader of an 
army of Royalists, and it is probable that he refrained 
from breaking with the Covenanters only because he 
hoped for support from the English Presbyterians. His 
kingdom was the country north of the Forth. Parlia- 
ment moved from Perth to Stirling in May, and Crom- 
well, marching from Edinburgh, offered battle in vain. 
Leslie had learned the lesson of Dunbar. Cromwell sent 
a force into Fife, which completely defeated a detachment 
despatched by Leslie to meet it, and he decided to run 
the risk of a Scottish invasion of England. Joining the 
English force in Fife, he marched on Perth and cut off 
the Scottish communications with the north. There had 
been some indications of Royalist risings in England, but 
Cromwell was never alarmed : " The enemy is heart- 
smitten by God, and whenever the Lord shall bring us up 
to them, we believe the Lord will make the desperateness 
of this counsel of theirs to appear, and the folly of it 
also." England was in no mood to welcome an army of 
invaders, and as Charles moved southwards by Carlisle 



to Worcester, he gained but few adherents. The Battle 
of Worcester was fought on the anniversary of Dunbar 
(September 3, 1651). Cromwell had left nothing to 
chance ; he had taken care, in his pursuit, that defeat 
would leave the enemy no second opportunity. The 
Scots, as Cromwell himseK tells, " made a very consider- 
able fight ... as stiff a contest for four or five hours as 
ever I have seen. . . . The battle ... in the end 
became an absolute ^-ictory, and so full a one as proved 
a total defeat and ruin of the enemy's army, a possession 
of the to^vn . . . and of all their baggage and artillery. 
There are about six or seven thousand prisoners taken 
here, and mam- officers and noblemen of ver}' great 
quahty. . . . The dimensions of this mercy are above 
my thoughts. It is, for aught I know, a crowning mercy. 
Surely, if it be not, such a one we shall have." 

Xo other was needed, for Scotland was already at the 
feet of the Commonwealth. General Monck, between 
Cromwell's departure from Scotland and the Battle of 
Worcester, had taken Stirling and Dundee ; the latter 
triumph was stained by a massacre. " The stubborn- 
ness of the people," Monck explained, "enforced the 
soldiers to plunder the town." Even more important 
than the fall of Dundee was the capture of the Executive. 
A Committee of the Estates was conferring with the 
veteran Earl of Leven at Alyth about the rehef of Dundee, 
when a raid from the camp of the besiegers made them all 
prisoners in Monck's hands. The pubHc records which 
had been found in Stirling Castle were removed to London. 
They were returned at the Restoration, but eightj'-five 
hogsheads of them were lost in a merchant -vessel, bearing 
the ill-omened name of the Elizabeth. The other northern 
towns soon followed the example of Stirling, and sur- 
rendered to the forces of the Commonwealth. The 
Enghsh Parliament at first spoke of asserting the right 



of conquest over so much of Scotland as is now under 
the power of the Forces of this Commonwealth."* but 
when nearly the whole of the country came under this 
description, a more magnanimous and a more statesman- 
like pohcy prevailed. It was announced in October, 1651. 
that Scotland was to become one Commonwealth with 
this of England," and in January, 1652. EngHsh Com- 
missioners ordered deputies from the shires and burghs 
of Scotland to meet at Dalkeith and assent to the Union. 
The deputies met. not without symptoms of discontent, 
but discontent was helpless against a military occupation. 
The necessary authority was given or extorted, and a 
second convention was summoned to Edinburgh to elect 
twenty-one of its members to attend the English Parha- 
ment in London, and represent Scotland when the final 
arrangements were made. About a third of the con- 
stituencies failed to respond, t but the deputies were duly 
elected. On their arrival in London, they were made 
to understand how great a condescension it was in the 
ParHament of England, to permit a people they had 
conquered to have a part in the legislative power." The 
conquerors reserved to themselves the right of saying 
what part, and after six months' discussion it was decided 
that Scotland should elect thirty members. Before the 
Bill for L'nion could become law, Cromwell had informed 
the Rump that they were no Parhament . . . corrupt 
unjust persons, scandalous to the profession of the 
Gospel," and. in the name of God, had bidden them 
" Go." But the proposal of a L'nion was not among 
their offences, and Cromwell and the Council of State 
acted as if it were already in force, and summoned to the 
Barebone Parliament five nominated Scottish members, 

* Cf. C. S. Terry. The CromwelUan Union (Scottish Historical 
Society) . 

f Terry, The CromwelUan Union, p. xxxv. 


one of whom refused to attend. No Act passed the 
Little Parliament, but after its dissolution the Council of 
State issued an Ordinance for Union, and in May, 1654, 
the Union and the Protectorate were proclaimed to- 
gether at Edinburgh. By the Instrument of Government 
twenty of the thirty Scottish members were allotted to 
the counties — one to each of the larger, and one to each 
of nine groups of the less important shires. There were 
also eight groups of burghs, each group returning one 
member, and the city of Edinburgh returned two mem- 
bers. When the ParUament met, a Bill was introduced 
to ratify the Ordinance of Union, but once more, before 
it had passed through all its stages, Cromwell had told 
his Parliament that "it is not for the profit of these 
nations, nor fit for the common and public good, for you 
to continue here any longer." The second Protectorate 
Parliament, famous for the Humble Petition and Advice, 
finally gave legislative sanction to the Union, and in its 
last days it contained not only thirty Scottish members 
of the Commons, but three in Cromwell's House of Lords. 
Representatives of Scotland were allowed to sit in the 
short-lived Parliament of Richard Cromwell. When the 
Long Parliament (the Rump) met again, in May, 1659, 
it could not admit the legality of Protectorate Ordinances 
and Acts, and a Bill for Union was again brought in, but 
it was never passed. 

Parliament was not the real problem of Scotland, 
and the disappearance of the Committee of the Estates 
in August, 1651, left the General Assembly as the sole 
representative body of the nation. Monck's task was, 
however, rendered easy by the disputes between the 
Resolutioners and the Remonstrants. A General Assembly 
had been summoned for 1653, and the ruling party in the 
Church ordered the Presbyteries to send only Resolu- 
tioners as members of the Assembly. This device, 



learned from King James, had been adopted without 
protest in 1638, and on other occasions, by the Covenant- 
ing party, but now that it was directed against a section 
of the Covenanters themselves no words were strong 
enough to denounce its iniquities. The Protesters argued, 
in Baillie's opinion, for " the total subversion of our 
Presbyterial Government," and Burnet tells how they 
" disowned that authority which hitherto they had mag- 
nified as the highest tribunal in the Church, in which 
they thought Christ was on his throne. . . . Since all 
Protestants rejected the pretence of infaUibiUty, the 
major part of the Church might fall into error, in which 
case the lesser number could not be bound to submit to 
them." The name of " Assembly-men " became a party 
designation — to such a pass had the policy of the Solemn 
League brought the supporters of a national religion. 
The Assembly met at Eciinburgh in July, 1653, and re- 
ceived the treatment which Cromwell was accustomed to 
mete out to English Parliaments. Musqueteers and a 
troop of horse surrounded the meeting-place, and, before 
the business began, an English Colonel demanded if they 
sat there by authority of the English ParHament. " The 
Moderator replied that we were an ecclesiastical synod, 
a spiritual court of Christ Jesus, which meddled not with 
anything civil." It was as useless to plead that " by 
the Solemn League and Covenant the most of the English 
army stood obliged to defend our General Assembly " 
as, before Dunbar, it had been vain to remind Oliver 
Cromwell of his own subscription. The Assembly was 
forcibly dissolved — not to meet again till Restoration 
and Revolution had changed the face of Scotland. It 
was believed that Synods and Presbyteries were to share 
the fate of Assemblies, but Monck and Cromwell were 
wise enough to follow the precedent set by James VI., 
not that of Charles I. " So it was resolved," says Burnet, 

Wa? practically the ruler of Scotland from 1663 to 1079. Born 1616, died.1682. 
From the jmiaiino by Scour/all in the fiossession of Colonel Gordon Gilmour. 


" to suffer them to meet still in their presbyteries and 
synods, but not in general assemblies, which had a greater 
face of union and authority." Not less abhorrent to the 
Covenanters than the forcible suppression of the Assembly 
was the toleration against which they had so long 
struggled. It must have been difficult to answer the 
English argument that, when they asked for liberty of 
conscience, they meant liberty to bind other men's con- 
sciences. This liberty Cromwell did not intend to grant. 

The Royalist party in Scotland made one effort to 
throw off the EngHsh yoke. In 1653 the Earl of Glen- 
cairn and Lord Lorne were raiding the Lowlands in the 
King's name, and early in 1654 Charles sent a more 
experienced leader in the person of John Middleton, a 
Covenanting soldier, who had been second in command 
at Philiphaugh, and had afterwards fought for the King 
at Preston and Worcester. Middleton was defeated near 
Loch Garry in July, 1654, and the old Royalists made 
no further attempt until after Cromwell's death. The 
Government had been unwise enough to make it treason- 
able to pray for the King, and it was therefore a point of 
honour to resist this Erastian interference with the 
Church. The " best of the ministers," says Baillie, found 
themselves " in conscience necessitate to keep the King 
in their public prayers." Baillie himself was of the 
number, and had to delay the choice of a second wife 
" till I see what the Lord will do with my great hazard 
about . . . high treason, praying for the King." In 1655 
the eight Commissioners who had governed Scotland since 
1651 were superseded by a Council of State, at the head 
of which was Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill, afterwards Earl 
of Orrery, a soldier and a poet. The Council removed the 
penalty, and Baillie wrote, in 1656 : " The King is so 
far forgot here that not one man, so far as I know, keeps 
any correspondence with him . . . yet I think divers 




pray to God for him and wish his restitution. But if men 
of my Lord Broghill's parts and temper be long among us, 
they will make the present Government more beloved 
than some men wish. From our pubhc prating for the 
King. Broghill's courtesies, more than his threats, brought 
off our leading men." BaiUie himself had come to the 
conclusion that our evils would grow 3'et more if Crom- 
well were removed," and it is clear that the new Govern- 
ment, to this extent, at all events, had conciliated 
Scottish opposition. Alexander Brodie of Brodie, who 
had refused to attend the Barebone Parhament because 

these of England do not hate but defend many false 
ways," took the oath as a Justice of the Peace in 1656, 
and two years later accepted a seat on the bench as one 
of Cromwell's Scottish Judges. 

The confiscation of Royahst estates, ordered by the 
Long Parhament in 1651, and the introduction into 
Scotland of the English Parhamentary device of monthly 
assessments, had serious economic results, and affected 
adversely the prosperity of the country. Burnet says 
that the eight years of usurpation " were a time of 
prosperity as well as of peace ; but a-s late as 165S Bailhe 
asserts that the country ... is exceeding poor, trade 
is nought, the Enghsh ha« all the moneys," and he pro- 
ceeds to show how " many of our chief famihes' estates 
are cracking, nor is there any appearance of human rehef , 
for the time." The boon of free trade vrith England, 
though futm-e events were to show that it was appre- 
ciated, did not have time to produce great results, and 
the heavy burden of taxation was bitterly resented in a 
country where taxes had always been hght. But if the 
CromweUian Government was expensive, it was also 
efficient. Scotland was, for the first time, adequately 
pohced. Before the reign of the Commonwealth and 
Protectorate took end," says the editor of the records of 



the Aberdeenshire Sheriff Court, " there was in almost 
every parish of Aberdeenshire an officer of the law."* 
Though the Court of Session was replaced by a Com- 
mission of Judges, some of whom were Englishmen, the 
poHcy adopted in the administration of the law was to 
strengthen existing institutions. The officers of the law 
in every parish v/ere Sheriff's officers, and the aim of 
both the Legislature and the Executive was to increase 
the power of the Sheriff. Heritable jurisdictions were 
abolished by the Ordinance of Union ; every Sheriff was 
to be an official appointed by the Government (as both 
James VL and Charles I. would have hked to make 
them). The old ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Com- 
missary Courts was annexed to the Sheriff Courts — a 
step which was to be retaken in 1836. Legal proceedings, 
as in England, were to be recorded, not in Latin, but in 
the vernacular. The Judges of the High Court were 
impartial and efficient. Except in the Highlands, the 
boast may well have been justified that, under Monck's 
rule, " a man may ride all Scotland over with a switch 
in his hand and £100 in his pocket." 

The death of Cromwell, in Scotland as in England, 
produced no immediate change. " We were feared for 
trouble after his death," says Baillie, " but all is settled 
in peace." While Monck remained in Scotland there was 
peace within her borders. On September 28, 1659, 
Lambert expelled the Rump in London, and Monck, 
who was already known to favour a free ParUament, left 
Scotland in the beginning of January, 1660. Repre- 
sentatives of Scottish shires and burghs had been sum- 
moned to meet him in Edinburgh six weeks before his 
departure. The Royalist Earl of Glencairn was one of 

* Records of the Sheriff Court of Aberdeenshire, edited by David 
Littlejohn, LL.D., vol. iii. (New Spalding Club). The editoi^s intro- 
duction to vol. iii. is most useful for this period. 



its Presidents. Monck told them that he was going to 
London " to maintain the hberty and being of ParHa- 
ments, our ancient constitution, the freedom and rights 
of the people of these three nations . . . and for a 
godly ministry," and he arranged with them the steps to 
be taken for the preservation of order and the defence 
of the country. In February, Conventions of Shires and 
Burghs met separately, and appointed a Joint Committee 
to negotiate with Monck about the removal of Scottish 
grievances, and to promote a better scheme for the union 
of the kingdoms. The dissolution of the Long Parlia- 
ment and the meeting of the Convention in England put 
an end to the discussion. On May 14, 1660, Charles II. 
was, for the second time, proclaimed at Edinburgh. 



The almost universal acclamation with which the 
Restoration of King Charles II. was received in Scotland 
was not intended as a greeting to a Merrie Monarch. 
Scotland rejoiced at her deliverance from a despotism, 
which, however benevolent and efficient, was yet Enghsh 
and military, and she welcomed back a Covenanted King, 
for whose throne Scotsmen had fought and died at Preston 
and Dunbar and Worcester. It is difficult for us to 
realize that the Restoration brought hope to the sup- 
porters of the Solemn League and Covenant, but it must 
be remembered that the restored Long Parliament, in its 
last days, contemplated the establishment of Presbyterian 
doctrine and discipline, and ordered a copy of the Cove- 
nant to be placed in every parish church in England. 
The Convention which invited the King to have his own 
again was largely Presbjrterian in sympathy, and, though 
it sat for six months after the King's return, it refrained 
from repealing the Act which deprived the spiritual peers 
of their seats in the Upper House. A union of moderate 
Presbyterians and moderate Episcopalians seemed a 
probable solution of the religious problem in England in 
the spring of 1660.* In Scotland, Presbyterian hopes 
were higher still. If the King could be made to realize 
how near to Popery were the opinions of the leaders of 

* Professor Firth in the Cambridge Modern History^ vol. v., p. 96. 




the Anglican party, his heart, it was believed, would be 
withdrawn from them. " The heaven for height and the 
earth for depth, and the heart of Kings is unsearchable," 
said the wise man. Twelve months in Scotland had not 
revealed the character of Charles Stewart. The news of 
the Restoration of the Book of Common Prayer in the 
Church of England came to Baillie as a painful surprise. 
" Can our gracious Prince ever forget his solemn oath and 
subscription ? He is a better man than to do it, if there 
about him be not very unfaithful servants." He could not 
realize that the Solemn League was to the vast majority 
of the people of England no national agreement with the 
Almighty, but one of the evil acts of a usurpation, and 
he blamed the English Presbj^terians for cowardice and 
folly : 

" We have lost a fair game by mere misguiding. A 
pity but Hyde and some others had been removed from 
Court before this. . . . Could I ever have dreamed that 
the Bishops and Books should have been so soon restored, 
with so great ease and silence of the Presbyterian Coven- 
anters in the two Houses, the City and Assembly of 
London, of Lancashire, and other shires ? Be assured, 
whatever surprise be for the time, this so hideous a breach 
to God and man cannot fail to produce the wrath of 
God in the end. ... I and many more, who have and 
will ever rejoice for the restitution of our King, resolve 
to complain to God and man, while we live, for the 
return of Books and Bishops." 

When BaiUie wrote, he had little, if any, suspicion that 
an ecclesiastical revolution was intended in Scotland and 
his words show that if Charles II. and his advisers had 
been actuated by the best intentions there would still 
have been a difficulty in reconcihng even the more 
moderate Covenanters to the necessity of accepting the 
failure of the Solemn League. Baillie was a Resolutioner, 



and his experience of the " dangers of our Church in 
Cromweirs time " had tended to modify some of the 
more extreme opinions he had adopted in the crisis of 
the controversy, yet he regarded the restoration of Epis- 
copacy in England as a wilful defiance of God. If the 
Resolutioners adopted this position, it was natural that 
the Remonstrants should go further still. What Baillie 
wrote in private letters they expressed, in stronger terms, 
in a petition to the King, the draft of which fell into the 
hands of his Scottish advisers. It warned Charles 
against malignants in the Royal Household and Prayer- 
Books in the Royal Chapel, and it asked for the extirpa- 
tion of Prelacy and the establishment of Presbytery in 
the three kingdoms. It inveighed against the " vomit 
of toleration, and reminded the King of the oath which 
he had taken at his coronation at Scone, a ceremony 
which the Remonstrants had themselves denounced as 
provocative of the wrath of God. The demand for the 
suppression of Episcopacy in England was worse than 
grotesque, and if the godly, as they caUed themselves, 
had represented pubhc opinion in Scotland, it is not easy 
to say what the Restoration Government could have done 
to pacify the country. But though they had, under 
Monck's rule, been successful in invoking the aid of the 
Erastian soldiers of the sectaries to intrude Remonstrant 
ministers upon unwilling congregations, they were con- 
fessedly in a minority. That the schism between Re- 
solutioner and Remonstrant should have survived the 
Battle of Worcester, the Commonwealth, the Protectorate, 
and the Restoration, is a bitter comment upon the 
attempt at national and international uniformity out 
of which the quarrel had grown, but the persistence and 
the ever-increasing rancour of the controversy offered 
the advisers of Charles II. an opportunity of which they 
declined to avail themselves. 



"Let the King do what he will." wrote Baillie. when 
Episcopacy was at his gates, " he will ever get the bless- 
ings of us all." Baillie had a personal affection for 
Charles. whom I will be loather in the least to offend 
than any mortal creature, for the particular respect I 
have, and ever have had. since my first acquaintance in 
the Hague." He was., therefore, not a typical Resolu- 
tioner. but it is probable that his party, as a whole, would 
have acquiesced in the estabhshment in Scotland of a 
moderate Presbyterianism, without the ecclesiastical 
tyranny which had marred not only the Solemn League 
but also the National Covenant. Even as it was, it took 
twenty years of misrule to produce a rebeUion on any 
considerable scale ; only a small number of Presby- 
terians were ever in a-ctual rebellion against the King, 
and men who had themselves suffered for their faith 
disapproved of the great rising in the west, in which were 
fought the Battles of Dnimclog and Bothwell Bridge. If 
Charles II. had conciliated the Resolutioners by a 
moderate Presbyterianism, two difficulties would have 
remained — the treatment of the episcopal minority in 
the north-east and in the Highlands, and the impossible 
claims of the Remonstrants. But it must be remembered 
that, under the Restoration, the question of Presbyterian 
orders was rarely raised, that there was httle or no 
difference of ritual between Presbyterians and Episco- 
pahans, and that there was no dispute about the suc- 
cession to the throne, such as, in later years, separated 
the two churches. The problem of the Episcopahans 
was not insoluble, Charles could confidently count on 
their loyalty, and if no compromise could be made, he was 
certainly strong enough to insist upon toleration. 
Further, the position of the Remonstrants in such cu'- 
cumstances would have been different from what it 
actually was. The modem beUef that the Covenanters 



were fighting at Drumclog and Both well Bridge simply 
and solely for the right to worship God in a Presb5i;erian 
Church must not be dismissed as a misunderstanding due 
to the errors of prejudiced historians T^dth a traditional 
theme to expound. It represents to no small extent the 
moral force behind the rebelHon. Bishops were forced 
upon a Church, the majority of whose members regarded 
their office as unscriptural and incompatible T^dth the 
spirit of Christianity. Charles gave the extremists 
grievances much more real than the imagined injury he 
had done them in refusing their outrageous demand to 
persecute his loyal subjects of the Church of England. 
The actual injustice and t^Tannj^ of which the King was 
guilty bulked larger in the mind of the nation than the 
impracticable injustice and tyranny- of which the ex- 
tremists desired to be guilty, and Presbyterians who 
regarded the risings as " unseasonable " and foolish 
would yet have been the last to deny that, were the 
circumstances more favourable, there was good ground 
for rebellion. The sympathy of later generations is 
derived not so much from an essential misapprehension 
of history, as from the genuine tradition of a great factor 
in the poHtics of the time. The rebels devised for them- 
selves bad reasons for rebellion, but they did not rebel 
until the King gave them good reasons. If there had 
been no ground of complaint beyond the negation of the 
Solemn League, would there have been any rebellion at 
all ? The question is essential to any fair judgement of 
the conduct of Charles II. and his advisers. 

It was not until some time after the Restoration that 
the royal policy in Scotland was determined, or at all 
events revealed. Charles, who not infrequently imitated 
the measures of his grandfather, James VI., began by 
securing an obsequious Privy Council. The Earl of 
Glencairn was the new Chancellor ; the Earl of Rothes, 



one of the Royalist prisoners at Worcester, became 
President of the Council ; and the still more important 
post of its Secretary was filled by the Earl of Lauderdale, 
a "gracious youth," of whom the Covenanters had once 
had high hopes. Like Rothes he had been captured at 
Worcester, and after his release in March, 1660, had gone 
to Holland to worship the rising sun. No -Parliament 
was summoned, but the Committee of the Estates, which 
Monck had seized at Alyth in 1651, reassembled and 
issued injunctions against unlawful assemblies and con- 
venticles. Any alarm which this might have caused 
was stifled by a letter in which Charles assured the 
Presbytery of Edinburgh of his intention to " protect 
and preserve the government of the Church of Scotland 
as it is settled by law," and Baillie describes the King as 
" in wisdom, moderation, piety, and grave carriage 
giving huge satisfaction to all." Rejoicing at the 
punishment of the EngUsh regicides, the insults to the 
bones of Cromwell and Bradshaw, and the disgrace of 
" blind Milton . . . and others of that maleficent crew," 
Baillie regarded without any violent emotion the retribu- 
tive measures taken in Scotland. The Scottish victims 
were four in number. The Marquis of Argyll had been 
rash enough to go to London, where he was arrested in 
July, 1660, and after a long trial at Edinburgh was 
beheaded on May 14, 1661. Sir George Mackenzie, who 
defended him, was sufiiciently tactful to tell him " a 
little before his death, that the people believed he was a 
coward and expected he would die timorously ; he said 
he would not die as a Roman braving death, but he would 
die as a Christian without being affrighted." He kept 
his promise and died manfully ; he " had been much 
hated by the people, yet in death he was regretted by 
many, and by none insulted over," says Baillie, thinking, 
doubtless, of Montrose, who had by this time been buried 


in St. Giles's " with a greater solemnity than any of our 
Kings ever had at their burial in Scotland." The second 
Restoration sufferer was J ames Guthrie, the Remonstrant 
minister of StirHng, who had declined to admit the royal 
authority in 1650, and was responsible for the petition 
sent to the King after the Restoration. Baillie, though 
he had ceased to love Argyll, mourned for his death, but 
he had httle sympathy for Guthrie. " Though few 
approved his way, yet many were grieved to see a minister 
so severely used." BailHe himself warned Lauderdale 
to " see that none get the King persuaded to take 
ministers' heads." and he considered that for Mr. Guthrie's 
restless and proud insolence the proper punishment was 
banishment to Orkney. Guthrie's execution is the first 
of many proofs that the Government did not know how 
to deal with fanatics. It was a satisfaction to the King's 
feelings, for Charles and some of his Ministers had 
personal reasons for revenging themselves on him, but 
the unsympathetic Mackenzie records how he " gained 
by his death the name of a martyr. Those of his party 
drenched up his blood with their napkins, which bloody 
reliques are held in much esteem to this day." With 
Guthrie suffered a Remonstrant soldier, William Govan, 
who had made terms with the English and joined Crom- 
well's army, and who was unjustly suspected of having 
been " on the scaffold when King Charles was murthered." 
The fourth victim, Johnston of Warriston, one of Mont- 
rose's judges, was in France, and had to be kidnapped 
before he could be tried and executed (1663). 

A new Parliament met in January, 1661. The King's 
Commissioner was the Royalist soldier, Thomas Middle- 
ton, whom Charles had created an Earl in 1656. He 
was " not very acceptable to many," but BaiUie tells us 
that, on his first arrival, " his wisdom, sobriety, and 
moderation has been such as makes him better beloved." 



Eaoh Estate chose its own Lords of the Articles to 
3Iiddleton's satisfaction, and Parliament proceeded to its 
work. The inspiration of the Commonwealth is possibly 
to be traced in some sound legislation about trade and 
commerce (though the Scottish Parhament had always 
b-en sensible in its dealings with such matters) ; aets 
.Sabbath-breaking and swearing were doubtless 
welcomed, and a against excessive drinking 

came strangely from t:.^ Government which, according 
to Burnet, was already becoming known as the " Dru nk en 
Administration."' But these things were not the real 
b->:r_ of the Parhament. Its members had been care- 
lu^ly elected, for letters had been addressed to ** such a 
gentleman in every shire as stood best affected to His 
}I: "r-':7"s service and whom they wished should be 
el-ctcl."' and Sir George Maekenzie never knew ''any 
Parhament so obsequious.'* Acts restoring the royal 
prerogative were its first duty ; the powers which 
Charles I. had given up in 1641 were restored to the 
Crown, and an oath of allegiance, in the English form, 
was imposed upon all officials. It recognized the Eang 
as supreme governor over aU persons and in all causes, 
as James VI. ha4 been recognized. Theological in- 
genuity was quite adequate to deal with this particular 
form of oath. and. though it caused some comment and 
the secession from Parhament of the Earl of CassilLs, it 
did not worry Robert BailHe. I took the oath . . . 
thirty four years ago. and yet never scrupled it," he says, 
and he thought that its opponents in the Presbytery of 
Edinburgh were making an unnecessary fuss. He was 
soon to share their alarm, for it began to be rumoured 
that aU Acts of Parhament since 1633 were to be rescinded. 

Tills caused a great noise and all grief over the whole 
land, so that for a while the motion was retired, and such 
intention denied."* It was not for long. On March 28, 


1661, a long and argumentative General Act Rescissory 
was passed, annulling the public statutes of the " pre- 
tended ParHaments " of the years 1640-1648. When 
this measure received the royal sanction, Episcopacy 
became automatically " the government of the Church 
of Scotland as it is settled by law," and the King could 
redeem his pledge to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. " In 
nothing that he promises will he fail," Montrose had said 
of Charles II. 

In July the Estates adjourned, and before they met 
again in March, 1662, the Restoration of Episcopacy was 
an accomplished fact. Charles and his advisers had 
made up their minds to restore the settlement of James VI. 
Lauderdale warned the King that his two predecessors 
had " ruined their affairs by engaging in the design of 
setting up Episcopacy," but Charles repHed that Pres- 
bytery was " not a rehgion for gentlemen." Middleton, 
who was determined to introduce EpiscopaHan govern- 
ment, prevented the local Church Courts from sending up 
petitions against it, but the Synod of Aberdeen was 
gladly permitted to ask for a government " conform to 
the Scriptures and the rules of the primitive church." 
Baillie placed his sole hope in " the goodness of the King 
himself." He says that " many of our people are 
hankering after Bishops," and laments the " qualities 
of these light men about Aberdeen who have ever been 
for all changes." If Charles could only be told the 
truth all would be well, he thought, and he implored 
Lauderdale and James Sharp to inform him in time. 
Sharp, the minister of Crail in Fife, had been the repre- 
sentative of the Resolutioners in London at the close of 
the Protectorate — " The most wise, honest, diligent, and 
successful agent of the nation in the late dangers of our 
Church in Cromwell's time," is BailHe's description of 
him, and in the summer of 1661 Baillie still believed in 



his integrity. Wliether Sharp had been consistently 
treacherous since the King's return, or whether, gradu- 
ally discovering that the cause of Presbytery was lost, he 
determined to find his own profit in the defeat of his 
party, is a disputed question. It was soon announced 
that he was to be Archbishop of St. Andrews, and in the 
end of 1661 he and three of his colleagues (Fairford, 
Archbishop of Glasgow ; Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway ; 
and Robert Leighton, Bishop of Dunblane) were con- 
secrated in London. Fairford and Hamilton had received 
episcopal ordination in the reign of Charles I., but 
Sharp and Leighton possessed Presbyterian orders, and 
it was decided to re-ordain them. Sharp, says Burnet, 
" stuck more at it than could have been expected from a 
man that had swallowed down greater matters.'* Leigh- 
ton, whose father lost his ears for uttering Sion's Plea 
against Prelacy, " did not stand much upon it." Like 
King James, " he did not think Episcopacy necessary 
to the being of a church," and though a saint he was no 
bigot. " They placed more rehgion in their ceremonies 
than in the most material matters of religion, and we 
placed more religion in opposing their ceremonies than 
in the weightiest matters of the law of God," he said, 
about this time, summing up the struggles of the past. 

When Parliament was reassembled it admitted the 
new Bishops to their places and restored their old juris- 
diction. No direction was given for the reordination of 
the clergy, and this step was taken only in exceptional 
cases ; in new ordinations the Bishops officiated as 
members of the Presbyteries. The Laudian Prayer- 
Book was not imposed upon the Church, and it was very 
rarely used. " We had no ceremonies, surplice, altar, 
cross in baptism," wrote Sir George Mackenzie about the 
Established Episcopal Church of Scotland. " The way 
of worshipping in our church differed nothing from what 



the Presbyterians themselves practised, excepting only 
that we used the Doxology, the Lord's Prayer, and, in 
baptism, the Creed " — all of which had been usual in 
Presbyterian churches till the Civil War. There was 
no episcopal confirmation, and no diaconate ; as far as 
doctrine and ritual were concerned Charles had restored 
the Jacobean and not the Laudian Episcopacy ; but 
the Government were not content, and in an effort to 
improve upon the settlement of King James they over- 
reached themselves and destroyed any element of per- 
manence in their arrangements. Cromwell had re- 
cognized that it would be an error in tactics to attack the 
lower courts of the Church, and after the General Act 
Rescissory, the Restoration Government had permitted 
them to meet until they indicated an intention of petition- 
ing against Episcopacy. An attempt was now made to 
retain them in complete dependence upon the Bishops. 
A Proclamation, issued in January, 1662, suspended 
their meetings until they should receive an Episcopal 
summons, and the Act which restored Episcopacy denied 
to meetings of office-bearers of the Church any jurisdic- 
tion " other than that which acknowledgeth a dependence 
upon and subordination to the Sovereign Power of the 
King as Supreme, and which is to be regulated and 
authorized in the exercise thereof by Archbishops and 
Bishops." The Jacobean Church was thus sharply 
distinguished from the Restoration ; in the former 
Bishops had been imposed upon the existing Presby- 
terian system, in the latter Episcopal government was 
to supersede the Presbyterian system. Further, the 
Erastian character of the settlement was accentuated by 
this provision, and Erastianism was abhorrent to many 
who were prepared to accept Episcopacy. The policy 
was not successful ; Kirk - Sessions and Presbyteries 
were so deeply rooted that they could not be converted 



into meetings which merely ratified the will of the 
Bishops, and they continued to hold a large place in the 
life of the nation, while the refusal of the more extreme 
Presbyterians to share in the deliberations of courts 
which in strict theory were not Presbyteries at all, 
prevented the actual persistence of Presb}i:erian dis- 
cipline from exercising any conciliatory influence upon 
the nation at large. vSharp, according to Burnet, " did 
this without any advice, and it proved very fatal." 

A still more um^dse step was to follow. It was not 
enough to give Bishops the government of the Church, 
to compel all persons in pubhc trust to renounce the 
Covenants, and to make a sermon against Episcopeicy 
a treasonable offence. The Government adopted a still 
more vigorous poHcy of Erastianism. Lay Patronage in 
the Church of Scotland had been aboUshed by an Act 
of 1649, which had now become invahd. Charles and his 
advisers chose to pick their quarrel with the Remonstrant 
clergy partly upon this non-rehgious ground. An Act 
of June, 1662, ordered that every minister who had been 
inducted since 1649 should ask for a presentation from 
the patron of his Hving, and a collation from the Bishop 
of his diocese. If such an application was made by 
September 20, the patron was ordered to accede to it ; 
if not, the Hving was to be declared vacant. In the 
north and east the Act was generally obeyed ; in the 
west it was ignored, and a meeting of the Privy Council 
was summoned. The Duke of Hamilton told Burnet 
that " they were aU so drunk that day that they were not 
capable of considering anything that was laid before them, 
and would hear of nothing but the executing the law." 
The recalcitrants were ordered to leave their parishes, 
and 271 incumbents were summarily ejected. Of these, 
87 belonged to the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, in which 
only 35 ministers remained. A suspension of the edict 

Born in 1613, and murdered by Covenanters at Magus Muir in 1679. 
From the painting in the possession of Sheriff Shairp. 


till February, 1663, produced little effect, and Burnet 
describes a " sort of an invitation sent over the kingdom 
like a hue and cry, to all persons to accept of benefices 
in the west. The livings were generally well endowed, 
and the parsonage houses well built and in good repair, 
and this drew many worthless persons thither, who had 
little learning, less piety, and no sort of discretion. . . . 
They were the worst preachers I ever heard ; they were 
ignorant to a reproach, and many of them were openly 
vicious. They were a disgrace to orders, and the sacred 
functions, and were indeed the dreg and refuse of the 
northern parts." 

Such was the " fatal beginning of Episcopacy in Scot- 
land." The Archbishop of St. Andrews was generally 
regarded as the possessor of a succession from Judas, and 
the Royal Commissioner was a drunken debauchee. In 
1663, iVIiddleton was dismissed, and was succeeded by the 
Earl of Rothes. Taking the view that " the King's 
Commissioner ought to represent his person," Rothes 
continued the tradition of debauchery which he had 
helped Middleton to create, and which Lauderdale did 
much to confirm. Episcopacy thus became popularly 
associated with vice in high places, and, under Rothes, 
it was soon to be supported by a deliberate cruelty which 
finds no parallel in the outrages of the Civil War. His 
first Parhament followed the precedent of the Eliza- 
bethan settlement in England by appointing fines for 
non-attendance at parish churches, and thus declared 
war on the Presbyterian laity. The method of enforcing 
the Act was calculated to increase its unpopularity. 
Parliament passed a Militia Bill, and troops were quar- 
tered in nonconformist districts. The new incumbents 
reported the absentees, and the soldiers collected the 
fines. Although the Parliament adopted King James's 
methods of electing the Lords of the Articles, Rothes 




and Lauderdale preferred to dispense with its assistance, 
and to " return to the good old form of government by 
His Majesty's Privy Council." The Estates were dis- 
solved in October, 1663, and did not meet again for six 
years. The Council followed up their recusancy measure 
by an exaggeration of one of the English penal laws of 
Elizabeth's reign. Ejected ministers were forbidden to 
reside within twenty miles of their former parishes, or 
within six miles of a cathedral town, or within three 
miles of a royal burgh. Only in the Highlands could 
these conditions be complied with, and the banishment 
of Whig ministers to the Highlands was not a practic- 
able proposal. Sharp brought to the aid of the Privy 
Council the services of a Commission for executing the 
laws relating to the Church, which he persuaded the King 
to appoint, but the experiment was unsuccessful and 
short-lived, and his proposal to summon a National 
Synod to sanction a Book of Common Prayer and 
Ecclesiastical Canons was never carried out, though it 
received the approval of the Parliament of 1663. 

From 1664 to 1666 a rebellion was expected by the 
Government. The gentry were poor and discontented, 
and in the " fierce and intractable " western shires many 
of them were subject, not only to fines for non-attend- 
ance at church, but also to pecuniary penalties for their 
conduct during the Civil War and the Protectorate. The 
loss of trade consequent upon the termination of the 
Union and the operation of the English Navigation Act, 
was greatly increased by the outbreak in 1665 of what 
the Convention of Royal Burghs described as " the un- 
happy wars with Holland." Reports sent to London in 
the illiterate handwriting of Rothes tell of " the strong 
evil affectedness of our pipill in this countrie who due 
rejouys that the duthe [Dutch] are not overthrown," 
and the Commissioner expressed his belief that " they 



would joayn with Turcks to feaght against the King and 
his guffernment." There were even rumours of a rising 
in the west in alliance with the Dutch. Some of the 
gentry of the western counties were imprisoned as a 
precaution, and an order for a general disarming was 
issued by the Council. The guilty consciences of the 
rulers of Scotland were unnecessarily alarmed. The 
people were determined to retain their arms, but not 
for the purpose of assisting the King's enemies. Ex- 
pelled from the churches, the nonconforming ministers 
and their parishioners began to worship in the open air, 
and the Privy Council forbade these field-meetings or 
conventicles, and held masters and landlords responsible 
for the attendance at them of their dependents. The 
prohibition was largely successful, but there was a defiant 
minority in the west, determined to fight, and, if necessary, 
to die for their opinions, and the conventicle became in 
Scottish tradition the characteristic feature of the reign 
of Charles II. Memories of conventicles were handed 
down as a precious possession. Sir Walter Scott used 
to tell that his " father's grandmother perfectly remem- 
bered being carried when a girl to these field preachings 
with her mother, where the clergyman thundered from 
the top of a rock, and the ladies sate upon their side- 
saddles, which were placed on the turf for their accom- 
modation, while the men all stood armed with swords 
and pistols, and watches were kept on each neighbouring 
eminence to give notice of the approach of the soldiers." 
The first conventicles were innocent of sword and pistol, 
but the Government was soon to give convincing proof 
of the necessity of such things. 

The soldiers who were engaged in exacting fines from 
the recusants found a new occupation in discovering and 
breaking up conventicles. Sir James Turner, who com- 
manded a body of these troops, was attacked at Dumfries 



on November 15, 1666. He had few men with him, the 
others " being out in parties for the levying of fines," 
and he was surprised and captured. Though Burnet 
describes him as " naturally fierce, but mad when he was 
drunk," the papers found in his possession showed that 
"he had been gentler than his orders were," and the 
triumphant Covenanters spared his life. " A great many 
run to the rebels, who came to be called the Whigs,"* 
and they marched to Lanark, where they issued a state- 
ment expressing loyalty to the King, and demanding 
the restoration of Presbytery and the Covenant. De- 
clining an offer of pardon, they marched from Lanark 
upon Edinburgh, followed by the Commander-in-Chief 
in Scotland, Sir Thomas Dalziel, a veteran of Bucking- 
ham's expedition to Rochelle, who had more recently 
served in the Russian army against Poles and Turks. 
When the Covenanters reached Colinton, they lost heart ; 
so far from receiving any support, they found that their 
numbers had fallen from 2,000 to some 900. They 
decided to return by the Pentland Hills, and on the nighfc 
of November 28 Dalziel found them at Rullion Green, f 
and inflicted upon them a severe defeat. 

There were over 100 prisoners of Rullion Green, and 
their treatment affords another illustration at once of 
the cruelty and of the folly of the Government. " Some 
of them will doubtless be put to the torture before they 
be executed," wrote one of the Privy Council ; and Sharp 
tried to prevent the escape to Ireland of those who had 
made their way home from Rullion Green. The Privy 
Council, of which Sharp was now President, had been 
unnecessarily alarmed, and they took measures to dis- 
cover a conspiracy which existed only in their own 

* The full term Whiggamore, from " whiggam," a word used in 
driving horses, had been applied to the Covenanters of the west for 
about twenty years. 

t See Professor C. S. Terry's Pentland Rising (MacLehose, 1905). 


His military career was devoted to the suppression of the Covenanters. Born 1649 [?] and fell 
mortally wounded at Killiecrankie, 1689, fighting for the House of Stuart. 

From the paintmg by Lely in the possession of the Earl of Strathmore. 



terrified imagination. The torture of the boot was em- 
ployed in vain to extract information from a young 
preacher, who, " for all the pain of the torture, died as 
in a rapture of joy." His dying words, " Farewell, sun, 
moon, and stars : farewell, kindred and friends : farewell, 
world and time : farewell, weak and frail body ; welcome, 
eternity : welcome, angels and saints : welcome. Saviour 
of the world : and welcome, God the Judge of all," were 
treasured by generations of Scotsmen. 

" It was a moving sight," says Burnet, " to see ten of 
the prisoners hanged upon one gibbet at Edinburgh, 
thirty-five more were sent to their counties, and hanged 
up before their own doors, their ministers all the while 
using them hardly and declaring them damned for their 

These men might have saved their lives by renouncing 
the Covenant, and Rothes described them as " damd 
fules and incorrigeable phanaticks." But it would be 
both unfair and unhistorical to speak of the sufferers as 
dying simply because of fanatical adhesion to the Solemn 
League. If the Government had done no more than 
ignore the Covenants, there would have been no Pentland 
Rising, and no rebels to torture and execute. Charles II. 
had made the Covenant the sole alternative to acquies- 
cence in an enforced Episcopacy, and the sole condition 
of Presbyterian worship. The Covenant had come to 
stand for more than the desire to bind other men's con- 
sciences ; persecution had converted an engine of tyranny 
into a weapon which could be used in the service of 
liberty. Much may be forgiven to the fanaticism of 
hunted men, and the sufferers for Rullion Green may claim 
more than forgiveness. They had endured with such 
patience as they possessed the destruction of their own 
propaganda of persecution, and now, by the grace of the 
King, they were privileged to fight for something better 



than the Solemn League and Covenant. In other cir- 
cumstances, they would, probably enough, have been 
guilty of the crimes for which we execrate the Restora- 
tion Government, and their opponents would have 
evinced a similar courage and devotion. As it was, the 
responsibility for the actual wrong lies with the perse- 
cutors. In the days of their power, the Covenanters had 
not known what manner of spirit they were of ; now 
they were of a nobler spirit, even if they knew it not. 

The vindictive cruelty of Sharp and of the ministers 
who " used hardly " the dying rebels was abhorrent to 
many who believed in Episcopacy. Leighton had already 
begged the King in vain to allow him to resign his 
Bishopric. "He could not concur," he said, "in the 
planting the Christian religion itself in such a manner, 
much less a form of government." There was no violence 
in his diocese ; " even the Presbyterians were much 
mollified, if not quite overcome, by his mild and heavenly 
course of life." Bishop Scougal of Aberdeen, the author 
of The Life of God in the Soul of Man, was on good terms 
with the Presbyterians in the north. The chaplain and 
biographer of Montrose, George Wishart, Bishop of Edin- 
burgh, who himself had known the cruelties of a harsh 
imprisonment, sent food to the starving prisoners of 
RuUion Green when they were crowded together in the 
corner of an Edinburgh church. 

" Many of the episcopal clergy," Burnet tells us, 
" hated violent courses, and thought they were contrary 
to the meek spirit of the Gospel, and that they alienated 
the nation more and more from the Church." 

But these men were powerless, and the work of sup- 
pression went on. Though Rothes was not yet " a 
wearie of causing hang such rebellious traitors," it was 
deemed best to trust to fines and confiscations. Dalziel 



took charge of the west, and, in Burnet's opinion, " acted 
the Muscovite too grossly ; he threatened to spit men and 
to roast them, and killed some in cold blood, or rather in 
hot blood. . . . When he heard of any that did not go 
to church, he would not trouble himself to set a fine upon 
him, but he set as many soldiers upon him as would eat 
him up in a night. And the clergy were so delighted 
with it that they used to speak of that time as poets do 
of the Golden Age." 

The Golden Age soon came, temporarily to an end. It 
had coincided with a decrease in the influence of Lauder- 
dale, but that astute statesman regained his power, and 
in September, 1667, Rothes ceased to be Commissioner 
and was promoted to the less important post of Chan- 
cellor. " Now," says Burnet, " all was turned to a more 
sober and more moderate management. Even Sharp 
grew meek and humble." Large numbers of the people 
entered into a bond for keeping the peace, and on the 
conclusion of the Dutch War, the army was disbanded. 
Leighton proposed an agreement for the comprehension 
of Presbyterians in the National Church. In June, 1669, 
Charles sent to the Privy Council a Letter of Indulgence, 
ordering them to allow peaceable and loyal Presby- 
terians to obtain vacant Hvings, and to pay pensions to 
others. The second provision was interpreted hy the 
ministers as "the King's hire to be silent " and it was 
declined ; under the first clause about forty-two Presby- 
terians had parishes assigned to them. The Archbishop 
of Glasgow, Alexander Burnet (not the historian), who 
had succeeded Fairford in 1664, got his Synod to remon- 
strate against the King's evasion of the law, and the 
incident led to his enforced resignation. The Indulgence, 
though it irritated the episcopal party in the west, was 
only a half measure. Its operation was so short-lived 
that the forty ministers who were " indulged " were 



generally suspected of having entered into a secret 
agreement, and it did not extend to protecting the 
Presbyterian conscience from episcopal authority and 
the acknowledgment of the Royal Supremacy. When 
Parhament met in October, 1669, it asserted the royal 
power so strongly that the Covenanters remarked that 
Scottish Episcopacy was " merely His Majesty's usurpa- 
tion over the house of God," and that EpiscopaHans 
complained, with some reason, that it had " made the 
King our Pope." The Estates had not met since 1663, 
though two Conventions had been summoned to supply 
the King with money. The Parliament of 1670, in which 
Lauderdale was the Royal Commissioner, was called to 
consider proposals for a Union with England, and to 
legalize a National Militia, on the model of the Common- 
wealth organization, with which the Privy Council had 
already replaced the disbanded army. Its meeting 
marks the end of the conciliatory policy of Lauderdale. 
The attempt of Leighton to negotiate with the Presby- 
terians soon ended in failure, and, resigning the Arch- 
bishopric of Glasgow which he had unwillingly accepted, 
he went into retirement in England. He was succeeded 
by his predecessor, Alexander Burnet, whose fierce spmt 
was more in sympathy with Lauderdale's new methods, 
Soon the growth of conventicles, not only in the west, 
caused alarm in London, where Lauderdale's administra- 
tion was represented as a failure. 

Lauderdale, thus incited to further rigour, carried 
through Parhament, in August, 1670, an Act against 
Conventicles which Charles himself regarded as ex- 
travagantly severe. The penalties for unlicensed 
worship in private houses were increased, and war to the 
knife was declared against field meetings : 

" Whosoever without Licence or authoritie . . . shall 
Preach, Expound Scripture or Pray at any of these 



meetings in the field Or in any house wher ther be moe 
persons nor the house contains so as some of them be 
without Doors (which is hereby declared to be a feild 
Conventicle) or who shall convocat any number of people 
to these meetings shall be punished with Death and 
confiscation of ther goods." 

Heavy fines were appointed for presence at conven- 
ticles, and informers were to be paid for helping to 
suppress them. Scotland was not pacified, and the 
extremists in the west attempted to make the position 
of conforming ministers intolerable. "Conventicles," 
Burnet tells us, " abounded in all places of the country, 
and some furious zealots broke into the houses of some of 
the ministers, wounding them and robbing their goods, 
forcing some of them to swear that they would never 
officiate any more in their churches." The Government 
had reasons for suspecting a Covenanting intrigue with 
the Dutch, and Lauderdale increased his repressive 
measures. "Would to God," he said, "they would 
rebel, that so I might bring over an army of Irish Papists 
to cut all their throats." His way was " to govern by 
fits, and to pass from hot to cold ones, always in extremes," 
and a second Indulgence was announced in 1672. " The 
Black Indulgence," in Mause Headrigg's words, " proved 
a stumbUng block " to about forty more ministers, and 
lovers of conventicles found that the Lord was kind to 
them when they left off hearing the conformists. Lauder- 
dale had further divided the Presbyterians, but he had 
only made the extreme party more bitter against the 
moderates and against the law. He had other difficulties, 
for he had quarrelled with his own supporters, and in 
1673 he found the obedient Estates daring to object 
to monopolies and showing a spirit which he had never 
expected to find. In February, 1674, they were dissolved 
and no Parliament met during the rest of Lauderdale's 



rule. He had been created a Duke in 1672 ; in the same 
year he made a second marriage, and the influence of the 
Duchess ahenated him from many of his friends. From 
this time onwards there were no more "cold fits " in his 
government of Scotland. Men who went armed to 
conventicles were outlawed, and all who gave them food 
or shelter were involved in the same penalty. Garrisons 
were billeted in country houses in the west, and in 1677 
landlords were required "to enter into bonds for them- 
selves, their wives, children, servants, tenants, and all 
that lived upon their estates, that they should not go to 
conventicles," or harbour outlawed persons. In vain 
they pointed out that this act of the Privy Council made 
it easy for a single servant or tenant to ruin them. Early 
in 1678 a "Highland Host," numbering 8,000 men, was 
quartered on the west, steahng and robbing everywhere ; 
when the landlords went to Edinburgh to protest, they 
were ordered to go home and assist the King's soldiers. 
" These things seemed done on design to force a re- 
belHon," says Burnet, and Lauderdale certainly con- 
templated this result. " How soon they may take arms 
no man can tell," he wrote in November, 1677, and his 
party showed so strong a desire for confiscated estates 
that the " people saw a rebellion was desired and bore 
the present oppression more quietly." Every device 
which legal ingenuity could invent was brought into 
requisition ; unfounded acccusations were made against 
the gentry of the discontented districts in order to give 
opportunities for the methods of the Inquisition ; writs, 
which were usually issued in cases where one man appre- 
hended injury from another, were served broadcast in 
the King's name, and security was taken for their 
observance. Lauderdale had many enemies in England 
as well as in Scotland, and in the summer of 1679 an 
investigation was held in London into the government 



of Scotiand, but Charles was not prepared to dismiss his 
Minister. His enemies, he thought, " had objected many 
damned things he had done against them, but there was 
nothing objected that was against his service." 

While the investigation was in progress the fate of 
Lauderdale's administration was being sealed. On 
May 3, 1679, Archbishop Sharp was barbarously murdered 
as he was driving across Magus Moor to St. Andrews. 
His life had been attempted before this, and only in the 
preceding year he had insisted upon the execution of an 
assassin who, in 1668, had failed to murder him, and who 
had confessed his crime under a promise of mercy. The 
men who killed him were there with the deliberate 
intention of murdering not Sharp, but one of his agents, 
and to their frenzied imaginations the opportune arrival 
of the Archbishop was an indication that God had 
delivered him into their hands. Strong Presbyterians 
heard of the murder with horror, and refused to extend 
to it the condonation of some later historians. " It 
grieved my soul to hear that any professing real grace 
should fall in such an act," wrote Alexander Brodie, who 
thought that " the taking away his life would do more 
harm to rehgion than ever his life had done." A few 
years earher it would have been an isolated outrage, but 
Lauderdale had prepared the ground too well. There 
was sympathy for the murderers in the west, where, 
through the winters of 1678-79, armed Conventicles 
had been numerous in spite of the repressive efforts of 
John Graham of Claverhouse, who had seen service under 
William of Orange, and was now in command of a troop 
of Horse Guards at Dumfries. 

On May 29, the day which an Erastian government 
had ordered them to observe as an Holy Day, some eighty 
Covenanters proclaimed in the village of Rutherglen 
their open defiance of the King. Their numbers increased. 



and when Claverhouse attacked them at Drumclog on 
June 1, they defeated him and marched on Glasgow, 
which they failed to enter. For three weeks they were 
in undisturbed possession of the country round the town 
of Hamilton. 

" If there had been any designs or preparations for a 
rebellion, now they had time enough to run together and 
to form themselves ; but it appeared that there had been 
no such designs, by this, that none came into it but those 
desperate intercommoned [outlawed] men, who were as 
it were hunted from their houses into all those extrava- 
gances that men may fall in, who wander about inflaming 
one another, and are heated in it with false notions of 

These words of Burnet describe the Covenanters of 
Old Mortality. It was a rebellion of fanatics — of fanatics 
who had been outlawed and cut off from human society, 
not because they were fanatics, but because they had 
worshipped God on the hill-sides. They demanded the 
Covenant, but it was not the Covenant which had driven 
them into rebellion. 

Lauderdale did not have the glory of suppressing the 
rising, for his opponent, the Duke of Monmouth, was 
sent to command the army which was raised to meet the 
rebels. The Covenanters were divided in opinion and 
in council. So strong was the force of fanaticism that 
they quarrelled among themselves as to whether the 
Indulgence should be included in their grievances against 
the Government. Prayers and sermons accentuated this 
ridiculous quarrel at the very time when their untrained 
and badly armed levies were facing the royal forces at 
Both well Bridge. They offered to treat with Monmouth 
on the basis of the summoning of a free General Assembly 
and a free Parliament, but he naturally dechned to deal 
with rebels in arms, and the battle began. Incompetent 
leadership added to the difficulties of the rebels ; they 
failed to use the advantage given them by the ground. 


and allowed the Royalists to seize Bothwell Bridge and 
bring across their artillery. The Covenanting cavalry 
was thrown into disorder by the guns, and, as at Dunbar, 
the horse threw the infantry into confusion. Four 
hundred were killed, and Monmouth brought over 1,000 
prisoners to Edinburgh, where for five months they were 
confined in the open air in Greyfriars' Churchyard. 
Some of them signed a promise to keep the peace, but over 
200 were shipped off to the plantations in the Barbadoes. 
Their vessel was wrecked off the Orkneys, and most of 
them were drowned. Only seven were executed. 

The comparative mildness of the Government's 
revenge is to be attributed to Monmouth, under whose 
influence a third Indulgence was issued. He was wise 
enough to see that " all this madness of field conventicles 
flowed only from the severity against those which were 
held within doors," and Burnet tells us that he obtained 
an order from the King " for allowing meeting houses, 
but the Duke of Monmouth's interest sunk so soon after 
this, that these were scarce opened when they were shut 
up again." The Duke of York was sent to Scotland in 
December, 1679, and, though he was not permanently 
resident, he was largely responsible for the administration 
up to 1682, and, indeed, until his own succession to the 
throne. James Stuart was not naturally fitted to carry 
out a policy of conciliation, but Burnet, who did not love 
him, admits that he " advised the Bishops to proceed 
moderately ... in matters of justice showed an impartial 
temper, and encouraged all propositions relating to trade ; 
and so, considering how much that nation was set against 
his religion, he made a greater progress in gaining upon 
them than was expected." Moderation is not the quality 
most generally associated with his administration of 
Scotland, but he was by no means solely responsible for 
the severities which gave to these years the name of the 
Killing Time. For twenty years the Government had 



put wisdom and moderation away from them ; by perse- 
cution and injustice they had aroused to madness the 
fanatical spirit of the Solemn League and Covenant. 

" A strange spirit of fury had broke loose on some of 
the Presbyterians," says Burnet. "These held that the 
King had lost the right to the crown by breaking the 
Covenant, which he had sworn at his coronation, so they 
said he was their King no more, and by a formal Declara- 
tion they renounced all allegiance to him." 

The Declaration of Sanquhar was issued on June 22, 
1680, but Charles Stewart, whom Donald Cargill and 
Richard Cameron and their followers disowned, had been 
since 1660 guilty of the " perjury and breach of covenant 
to God and His Kirk," for which they now declared him 
incapable of reigning. Fanaticism is always blind to its 
own best argument and frequently unconscious of its 
actual motives ; not the royal perjury but the royal 
t3^ranny was the real cause of the King's " deposition." 
The leaders of the movement, the preachers and the 
country gentlemen, had all been excepted from the 
Indemnity which Monmouth had secured for the rebels 
at Bothwell Bridge, and doomed and outlawed men 
naturally grasp at ^vild expedients. 

The Declaration of Sanquhar was, of course, a challenge 
which no Government could refuse, and it was essential 
that the King's authority should be established. In a 
skirmish at Aird's Moss, in July, 1680, Richard Cameron, 
from whom the name of Cameronians was given to the 
rebels, was killed, and among the prisoners was Hackston 
of Rathillet, who had been present at Sharp's murder. 
For Hackston there would be no mercy, nor is it reason- 
able to blame the Government for executing Cameron's 
colleague, Donald Cargill, when they captured him in the 
following summer. In the interval he had solemnly 
excommunicated at Torwood, the King, the Dukes of 
York, Monmouth, Lauderdale, and Rothes, General 



Dalziel, and Sir George Mackenzie. The treatment of 
the rank and file of the Cameronians indicates the vindic- 
tiveness and lack of foresight which had marked the 
whole of the reign. Two women among the prisoners 
were offered their lives if they would say on the scaffold, 
" God bless the King !" The offer was refused. " One 
of them said very calmly, she was sure God would not 
bless him, and that therefore she would not take God's 
name in vain ; the other said, more sullenly, that she 
would not worship that idol, nor acknowledge any other 
King but Christ, and so both were hanged." Burnet 
describes them as suffering from madness, " for they never 
attempted anything against any person, only they seemed 
glad to suffer for their opinions." To encourage such an 
ambition was criminal folly. 

Parliament, which had not met since 1674, was assembled 
in 1681 with the Duke of York as Royal Commissioner. 
The present discontents were less in the mind of the 
Duke than future contingencies. Additional penalties 
were imposed for attendance at conventicles, and, in 
accordance with the policy of the last twenty years, the 
penal laws against Roman Catholics were to be put into 
force " against all Phanatick Separatists from this 
National Church, preachers at hous or feild Conventicles 
and the resetters and harborers of Preachers who are 
inter-communed." But these measures were not the 
object of the meeting of the Estates. The Exclusion Bill 
in England had inspired James to make certain of his 
position in Scotland, and this Parliament passed an Act 
declaring it perjury and rebellion to attempt to alter the 
lineal succession to the throne. A new oath was drawn 
up to be imposed on " all persons in public trust." He 
to whom this oath was administered expressed his 
approval of the Confession of Faith of 1560, and vowed 
never to " consent to any change or alteration contrary 
thereto." He affirmed the royal supremacy and his own 



conviction that it was " unlawful for subjects ... to 
enter into Covenants or Leagues, or to convocat . . . 
any Councils, Conventions, or Assemblies, to treat, 
consult, or determine in any matter of State, civil or 
ecclesiastical, without His Majesty's special command." 
Finally, he swore that he was under no obligation by 
Covenant or otherwise, to " endeavour any change or 
alteration in the Government, either in Church or State 
as it is now estabHshed," and promised never to " dechne 
His Majesty's power and jurisdiction." The Confession 
of Faith of 1560 said that the Lord Jesus " is the only 
Head of the Kirk," and this was not the only incon- 
sistency in this extraordinary document. The pretence 
that it was an anti- Popery Act could deceive no one, for 
the Commissioner to the ParHament was a Eoman 
Cathohc, and exemptions from the test were allowed to 
the royal family, from whom alone a Roman peril was 
now to be feared. Eighty of the episcopal clergy gave 
up their livings rather than take this test, and the Earl 
of Argyll, who took it "as far as it is consistent with 
itself," found that he had made himself Hable to a charge 
of treason for defaming the King's laws. He was tried, 
found guilty, and escaped. Xothing that any of the 
fanatics had done or said could exceed the absurdity of 
this prosecution. 

The Duke of York returned to England in 1682, and 
the Earl of Aberdeen became Chancellor of Scotland. 
The constant exaction of fines gave to the conformist 
clergy in the west unfiling congregations, who came to 
church to talk or sleep. But there was still a remnant 
of irreconcilable opponents, and the apprehensions of the 
Government were roused by the Whig plots in England, 
in which Scottish Whigs were known to be impHcated, 
and by fears of a Dutch invasion under the auspices of 
the exiled Argyll In May, 1684, the Earl of Perth 
succeeded Aberdeen as Chancellor, and the thumbscrews 


Born in 1675, advocated a Treaty of Union with England in 1705, a Secretary of State 
for Great Britain in 1713, commanded Jacobites at Sheriffmuir in 1715, and died at Aix-la- 
iJhapelle in 1732. 

From, the painting in the possession of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. 



were called in to aid the torture of the boot. The rebels 
now took a step which completely alienated public 
sympathy. In October, 1684, under the influence of 
James Renwick, an outlawed preacher who believed in 
the principles of Phineas, they issued an " Apologetic 
Declaration " in which they announced their intention 
of punishing, after proper investigation, all officers of 
the law employed against them, including in the number 
" viporous and malicious Bishops and curates " who 
gave information to the civil or military authorities. 
Some murders followed the Declaration, and the Govern- 
ment placed the west under martial law. Dalziel and 
Claverhouse, who were entrusted with the command of 
the troops, gave implicit obedience to their instructions. 
Rebels who abjured the Declaration were given a trial, 
and were generally sentenced to transportation and the 
loss of an ear ; refusal to abjure was followed by instant 
death, as in the case of John Brown of Priesthill, who 
declared that " he knew no King," whereupon Claver- 
house, in his own words, " caused shoot him dead, which 
he suffered very unconcernedly." Women who were 
fanatical enough to persist in adherence to the Declara- 
tion found their sex and their helplessness no protection 
against the law, and the legal murder of two women who 
were drowned at Wigtown in 1684 lived on in popular 
tradition, long after the wild Declaration for which they 
suffered was generally forgotten. 

When James VII. succeeded his brother in 1685, an 
Act of Parhament made death the penalty for mere 
attendance at a conventicle. For this, the most severe 
legislative measure against the Covenanters, it is possible 
to plead the excuse of Argyll's rebellion in the interests 
of the Duke of Monmouth. The Government were well 
warned, and when Argyll landed in his own country, 
he found a force ready to receive him, and after many 
changes of strategy, he marched into the Lowlands, 




where internal dissensions led to the dispersion of his 
army. Argyll himself was captured and executed on 
his old sentence. The last Conventicle Act was not the 
only proof of the cruel terror which from time to time 
drove the Government to fresh atrocities. Covenanting 
prisoners had frequently suffered great hardships on the 
Bass Rock, but the Bass Rock did not now afford suffi- 
cient accommodation, and a hundred men and women 
were imprisoned in a vault in Dunnottar Castle, under 
conditions which suggest the " Black Hole of Calcutta." 
Burning matches between their fingers formed the 
penalty for an attempt to escape. Most of them were 
ultimately transported to the plantations. 

James now changed his policy. His Scottish Parlia- 
ment had mourned the death of Charles II. " to all the 
degrees of grief that are consistent with our great joy 
for the succession of your sacred majesty," but they 
were not prepared to repeal the penal laws, and James 
dissolved the Estates in 1686, and governed through the 
Privy Council, which he filled with Roman Catholics. 
Indulgences were proclaimed in 1687, and were received 
with some gratitude by Presbyterians less extreme than 
the Cameronians. Ren wick still protested, and was 
caught and hanged at Edinburgh early in 1688, the last 
martyr for the Covenant. " Though he might die in 
Christ, yet he died not for Him," was a contemporary 
Presbyterian verdict on his death. He was only twenty- 
six, and his whole life had been spent in Restoration 
Scotland. Enthusiasm and devotion had been con- 
verted, by his brief experience of the life of a hunted 
people, into a wild fanaticism which brought suffering 
and death to many of his followers as well as to himself. 

The measures by which James attempted to force 
toleration upon Scotland were similar to those which he 
adopted in England. Two of the Scottish Bishops were 
dismissed ; Protestants were expelled from the Privy 



Council, municipal corporations were filled with royal 
nominees, Holyrood was given to the Roman Catholics 
as a place of worship and education. Episcopalians and 
Presbyterians joined in detesting the toleration of Roman 
Catholics, and the birth of the Prince of Wales created in 
Scotland the same feeling of alarm for the future as it 
evoked in England. William of Orange addressed a pro- 
clamation to Scotland which was widely circulated, and 
when the news of his landing and the flight of King J ames 
reached Edinburgh in December, 1688, the Royal Chapel 
at Holyrood was sacked by an Edinburgh mob. On 
Christmas Day, the Cameronians took their revenge upon 
the clergy of the west by evicting them from manse and 
church, and by threatening them with penalties similar 
to those of the Six Mile Act which had been directed 
against themselves. On the whole, the Cameronian 
vengeance was slighter than it might have been, though 
Christmas evictions must have involved much suffering. 
The "rabbling of the curates" was the single triumph 
of the extreme party, for the expulsion of the Stewarts 
was not to mean a return to the Covenant. 


Not used in Scotland before 1684. 



Early in April, 1689, a Convention Parliament met at 
Edinburgh. At one bound the Estates adopted the 
constitutional principles for which English Parhaments 
had fought since the fourteenth century. The Scottish 
constitutionalism of the reign of Wilham of Orange was 
the gift of England ; it had but small roots in the past of 
a country where freedom had not broadened from pre- 
cedent to precedent. The Scottish Parliament had 
played an insignificant part in the making of the nation, 
but the mere existence of Parliamentary institutions is 
always potentially a menace to any Government not 
founded on the will of the people. If the Estates had not 
fought for power it was equally true that they had never 
been beaten, and they could reasonably argue that what 
they had not dared to oppose had depended upon their 
sanction and concurrence. If constitutionaHsm was 
young, it was also vigorous, and the Scottish Convention 
went beyond the English in its assumption of complete 
and uncontrolled power. There was, at Edinburgh, no 
suggestion that the King's flight amounted to abdication, 
with which the Tories at Westminster tried to soothe 
their disquieted consciences. James VII., by a long 
series of illegal acts, had forfeited the Crown. It was 
offered to William and Mary on conditions similar to 
those of the English Bill of Rights, but with one important 




addition. The new Sovereigns must undertake to dis- 
establish the Episcopal Church. 

The language in which this clause of the Claim of 
Rights was expressed marks the beginning of the modern 
Scottish attitude to ecclesiastical polity, and the aban- 
donment of the untenable claims of the past. It con- 
tained no hint of a Covenant, and no reference to the 
Divine right of Presbytery, and it based the demand upon 
popular sanction : 

" That Prelacy and the superiority of any office in the 
Church above Presbyters is and hath been a great and 
insupportable grievance and trouble to this Nation, and 
contrary to the Inclinations of the generality of the 
people ever since the Reformation (they having been 
reformed from popery by presbyters), and therefore 
ought to be aboHshed." 

The statesmen who drew up this form of words repre- 
sented the moderate Presbyterian party, and they had to 
face the bitter opposition of the extremists, who, in 
1690, as in 1660, v/ould be content with nothing less than 
the Solemn League and Covenant, the neglect of which, 
they held, " involved this nation into a most fearful 
perjury before God." A graver and more immediate 
danger came from the supporters of King James. As 
the Great Rebellion had converted the Scottish Episco- 
palians into a Royalist party, the Revolution made them 
Jacobites, and they could rely on the support of High- 
landers and Roman Catholics. 

" To the Lords of Convention, 'twas Claverhouse spoke, 
'Ere the King's Crown go down, there are crowns to be broke.' " 

In the early summer of 1689 Edinburgh Castle was 
being held for King James, and Claverhouse, now Vis- 
count Dundee, was collecting an army of Highlanders, 
with which to emulate the heroic deeds of his kinsman. 



Montrose. On June 13 the Castle of Edinburgh sur- 
rendered, and on July 27 Dundee was killed at Killie 
crankie. The battle was a Jacobite victory, but the loss 
of the leader proved the death-blow to the cause, and 
mihtary resistance soon came to an end. Dundee's 
rising, which showed the strength of the episcopal party, 
correspondingly weakened the Presbyterian contention 
that the majority of the nation was opposed to Prelacy, 
and there was considerable discussion over the ecclesi- 
astical settlement. The Estates, in their formal com- 
munications with WilHam, had referred to Presbytery, 
not by name, but as " the form of Church government 
now desired," and in the session of 1689 they had intro- 
duced a Bill aboHshing " Prelacy and all superiority of 
office " in the Church of Scotland. WilUam, in spite of 
the condition on which the crown had been offered to 
him, hesitated about the establishment of Presbytery, 
and if the extremists had been leading the Presbyterian 
party the Revolution settlement might have been dif- 
ferent. But the Moderates, under the guidance of 
WilHam Car stares, satisfied William that in their victory 
lay the road to peace, and the Parliament of 1690 re- 
scinded the Acts establishing Episcopacy and the royal 
supremacy over the Church, restored the Presbyterian 
ministers ejected in 1661, ratified the Westminster 
Confession of Faith, re-enacted the " Golden Act " of 
1592, and abolished lay patronage. Except for the 
supersession of the Knoxian by the Westminster Con- 
fession, the whole of the history of the Church from 1592 
to 1689 was thus ignored, to the indignation of the 
Cameronians. The Cameronian or " Society " ministers 
submitted to the General Assembly which met in 1690, 
but their followers declined to acknowledge uncovenanted 
Sovereigns and an uncovenanted Church, and they 
remained outside the Establishment, and formed the 
first of the numerous secession Churches. 


At the time of the Union with England the " United 
Societies of the witnessing Remnant of the anti-Popish, 
anti-Prelatic, anti-Erastian, anti-Sectarian, true Presby- 
terian Church of Christ in Scotland " issued a vehement 
protest against the " sinful incorporating Union " with 
a Prelatic country, and laid stress on the danger of 
exposing the country " to the just judgment of God " by 
the toleration of " Anabaptists, Erastians, Socinians, 
Arminians, Quakers, Theists, and Libertines of all kinds 
. . . venting and vomiting up their damnable and hellish 
tenets and errors." The moderation of the Revolution 
settlement could not, of course, destroy in a moment the 
effect of a century of intolerance, and the history of the 
EstabHshed Church was stained in 1697 by the execution 
of a youth called Thomas Aikenhead for a blasphemous 
denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The circumstances 
of his case added to the wicked injustice of the sentence, 
and his death is a blot both upon the re-established 
Church and upon the Government of the country. 

The episcopal clergy who refused to acknowledge 
William and Mary were driven from their parishes, but 
those who took the oath were permitted to retain their 
livings, though deprived of their share in the government 
of the Church. In the episcopal area in the north-east 
it was not until after the Rising of 1715 that the parishes 
were filled with clergy of Presbyterian sympathies, and 
in the Highlands a still longer period often elapsed before 
the Presbyterian Church was established. A Presby- 
terian minister was not inducted to the parish of Lairg 
till 1714, to Lochcarron or to Lochbroom till 1726, to 
Applecross till 1731, or to Glenshiel till 1739. The 
episcopal gentry of the Highlands, and especially of 
Ross-shire, succeeded in keeping parishes vacant, and 
when a " Whig minister " was appointed, sometimes 
barricaded the church doors to prevent his entrance. In 
1731 the minister of Lochcarron petitioned to be removed 



from his parish. " His Hfe, he set forth, was in constant 
danger, and one family constituted his sole audience."* 
The Presbytery refused to grant his request, and, like 
others of his contemporaries, he lived to win the confidence 
and affection of his parishioners and to bring them into 
communion with the Church. The breach between 
Episcopalian and Presbyterian was widened by the 
sufferings of the ejected clergy, and by the loyalty of the 
Episcopalians to the House of Stewart, and when, in the 
reign of Queen Anne, the Episcopal Church began to use 
the English Liturgy, differences of doctrine and history 
were accentuated by the contrast between its services 
and those of the Church of Scotland, which had now 
entirely abandoned Knox's Book of Common Order, and 
was beginning to depart from the rules of the Westminster 

The struggles of the seventeenth century had widened 
the breach between Highlands and Lowlands. In the 
literature of the sixteenth century we find a series of jests 
at the Gaelic tongue, the kilt, and the bagpipes, and in 
the course of the century " Scots " came to be used for 
the Lowland tongue. The speech of the Highlanders, 
hitherto invariably! described as the Lingua Scotica, 
is called by sixteenth - century writers " Erse " or 
*' Irish." Eeligious differences at the Reformation in- 
creased the cleavage caused by the English and French 
influences which had introduced a new civiHzation into 
the Lowlands, and the struggle between Presbytery and 
Episcopacy created, in the South of Scotland, a bitter 

* Sage, Memorabilia Domestica, or Parish Life in the North of 
Scotland, p. 16 (Wick, W. Rae, 1889). 

f There is a possible exception in Barbour's Bruce (Book XVIII., 
1, 443), " Then gat he all the Erischr^^ that war intill his company, of 
Argyle and the His answa." "Erischry" here has sometimes been 
taken to mean the Scottish Highlanders, but its regular usage in 
Barbour is for Irishmen, and this is probably the meaning here. If 
not, there is no parallel instance for over a century. 


dislike for the Highlanders. A memorable event of the 
reign of William and Mary provided the first illustration 
of the revival of sympathy between Lowlanders and 
Highlanders. December 31, 1692, had been appointed 
as the latest day for the submission of the Highland 
chiefs to the new Government. MacDonald of Glencoe, 
one of the chiefs who had followed Dundee, arrived at the 
newly erected Fort William in the last days of the month. 
The commandant had no power to receive his oath of 
allegiance, and it was not till January 6, 1692, that he 
was able to reach the Sheriff of Argyll at Inverary and 
make his submission. Whether William was aware of 
the circumstances is uncertain, but on January 16 he 
advised the Scottish authorities " to extirpate that sect 
of thieves." Campbell of Glenlyon, an hereditary enemy 
of the Macdonalds, acting with the knowledge of Sir 
John Dalrymple of Stair, the Under Secretary of State, 
resolved to execute the royal command not only to its 
fullest extent, but by methods of revolting treachery. 
On February 1, 1692, he led a force into the Pass of 
Glencoe. He and his men were received with friendship 
and hospitality, and remained for nearly a fortnight as 
the guests of the MacDonalds., Meanwhile, he was 
arranging to close the passes to prevent the escape of 
his hosts, and early in the morning of February 13, the 
soldiers murdered MacDonald, and began to massacre 
his clansmen. In the darkness of a winter morning, his 
precautions failed to preclude escape, but over thirty 
MacDonalds were slain in cold blood. The Government 
of William and Mary had merely followed precedents set 
by Murray, Morton, and James VI., and they were 
startled by the indignation which their crime evoked in 
Scotland and France, and even in England. But the 
atrocious treachery of Glenlyon differentiated the attack 
on the MacDonalds from similar measures taken in 



earlier reigns ; public opinion may have become more 
sensitive to deeds of this description ; and the Jacobites 
did not fail to draw attention to the benevolent govern- 
ment of the usurpers. Three years after the massacre, 
William was compelled to appoint a Commission of Inquiry 
which did its best to shield the King's personal reputation. 
He himself had the courage to stand by his ministers, 
and the criminals were not punished. 

To divert the attention of the Lowlanders from the 
Glencoe incident and from ecclesiastical squabbles 
which were disturbing the King's relations with the 
Established Church, the Government, in 1695, encouraged 
the formation of a Scottish company to trade with Africa 
and the Indies. Scottish commerce had declined in the 
course of the seventeenth century. The ancient com- 
mercial relations with France and the Netherlands had 
been destroyed by English foreign policy, and the long 
Civil War had exhausted the country. A report on the 
Scottish Burghs, drawn up in 1692, shows that in Glasgow 
"near five hundred houses were standing waste," that 
the Harbour of Ayr was ruinous, and that the High Street 
of Dumfries contained scarcely a habitable house. 
Efforts were now being made to recover lost ground, and 
William Paterson, the founder of the Bank of England, 
was the originator of the unfortunate African Company, 
which is remembered for its great failure, an attempt to 
colonize the Isthmus of Darien. William, immersed in 
foreign wars, did not understand the effect of the trading 
privileges or of the powers of military colonization which 
were conferred on the Company by an Act of the Scottish 
Parliament to which the royal assent was given. These 
powers awakened the jealousy of the English Commons 
who denounced the Directors as guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanours. English capital was withdrawn, 
and in face of English opposition the chances of 



creating a successful trading company disappeared. The 
Directors, under the influence of Paterson, decided to 
colonize the Isthmus of Darien, which he regarded as 
the natural centre of American trade. In the end of 
1698, 1,200 Scots landed on the shores of the Gulf of 
Darien. They had difficulties with the Spaniards, and 
the English colonies at New York, in the Barbadoes, and 
in Jamaica, were forbidden to render them assistance. 
Without adequate resources, and without proper organiza- 
tion or efficient leadership, they soon fell victims to disease 
and famine, and subsequent expeditions found only empty 
huts. Finally, the Spaniards drove out the Scots. The 
King had personally used his influence against the com- 
pany, and his foreign policy was largely responsible for 
its failure. 

" Wilful Willie " was never forgiven in Scotland, and 
Carstares (like Lady Margaret Bellenden some years 
earlier) feared that "the evil spirit of the year sixteen 
hundred and forty twa was at wark again " ; but the 
moral of the situation was not war but peace. The 
tragedy of Darien convinced the Scots that trade could 
flourish only after a union of the kingdoms. The com- 
mercial classes had held this view since the time of 
Cromwell, and had shown anxiety for a Union in 1670. 
William had urged it at the beginning of his reign, and 
in his closing years the question was again discussed. 
A purely personal Union of the Crowns of two independent 
kingdoms had worked well enough under an absolute 
monarch. But the Scottish Parliament which, in 1690 
had compelled William to assent to the abolition of the 
Lords of the Articles, had become a free, if not a repre- 
sentative, assembly, and it regarded itself as the ruler 
of the country, and wished to interfere even in questions 
of foreign policy. The English Parliament was making 
similar claims, and a constitutional monarch less arbitrary 



than William might have found it impossible to conduct 
the business of the country. There was thus a constitu- 
tional as well as a commercial necessity for a Union, but 
both would have been satisfied by a Union of a federal 
type. The death, in 1700, of the only surviving child 
of the Princess Anne, and the consequent Act of Settle- 
ment passed by the English Parliament, created a 
necessity for an incorporating Union. The Revolution 
Settlements provided that Anne should succeed William 
on the thrones of both England and Scotland ; but the 
Scottish Parliament was free to choose, on the death of 
Anne, a Sovereign other than " the most excellent 
Princess Sophia " or her son George, the Elector of Han- 
over. The problem of the last year of William's reign 
was to bind Scotland, indissolubly, to the succession 
of the House of Hanover. 

William II., as his title ran in Scotland, died in March, 
1702, and the solution of the problem was reserved for 
Queen Anne's Whig Ministers. Her first English Parlia- 
ment appointed Commissioners to meet representatives 
of the Estates of Scotland ; but its sympathies were Tory, 
and the Tory party had no enthusiasm for the Union. 
The Occasional Conformity Bill which passed the English 
Commons caused serious alarm for the safety of the 
Established Church of Scotland under an incorporating 
Union, and the English Commissioners hesitated about 
the question of freedom of trade. The negotiations fell 
through, and the Scots at once removed the restrictions 
on the importation of wine from France, then at war 
with England. In the summer of 1703, the Scottish 
Parliament passed a Bill of Security. It named no 
successor to Queen Anne, but invested the Parliament 
with the power of the Crown in the event of her dying 
without heirs, and entrusted to it the choice of a Protestant 
Sovereign " from the royal line." It contemplated the 



possibility of ignoring the claim of the House of Hanover, 
for it provided that the Union of the Crowns should come 
to an end unless Scotland was admitted to equal trade 
and navigation privileges with England. If this con- 
dition was fulfilled, and the next Sovereign of England 
was selected to fill the Scottish throne, he was not to have 
the power of declaring war or making peace without the 
consent of the Scottish Estates. Further clauses pro- 


vided for the compulsory training of every Scotsman 
to bear arms, in order that, if necessity should arise, the 
country might defend its independence with the sword. 

This famous measure thus raised, in an acute form, 
the constitutional, the political, and the commercial 
issue alike. It was supported in the Scottish Parliament 
by discontented Presbyterians who feared for the safety 
of the Church, by the Patriot or Country party, whose 



aim was to preserve, at all hazards, the national in 
dependence, and by the Jacobites to whom it gave hopes 
that the struggle which would follow the Queen's death 
might result in a Restoration. In England it was natur- 
ally accepted as a menace, and the Queen refused to give 
her assent to it. The Estates, following English prece- 
dents, declined to vote supplies, and sent up the Bill 
again in 1704, and the Country party, led by the Re- 
pubHcan Fletcher of Saltoun, began to ask if the royal 
assent was more than a customary formality. The army 
in Scotland was unpaid, and Godolphin, in August, 
advised the Queen to sanction the Act of Security. She 
did so, but the news of Marlborough's victory of Blenheim 
at once removed many difficulties from the path of the 
EngHsh jVIinisters, who proceeded to meet insult with 
insult, and passed an Act declaring that, if the Scots 
did not accept the Hanoverian succession by Christmas 
Day, 1705, all Scotsmen were to become aliens in England, 
and ships of war were to be sent to prevent the Scots 
from trading with France. So confident were they of 
the efficacy of the threat, that the same Act empowered 
the Queen to appoint Commissioners to treat for a Union. 
The temper of the two nations was further exasperated 
by English behef in the existence of a great Jacobite 
plot in Scotland, and by the execution, at Edinburgh, 
of three officers of an English trading vessel, who were 
suspected of piracy. 

It was clear in the winter of 1704-05 that the English 
must " faU out with the Scots or unite with them." 

" The people," says Daniel Defoe, who was the English 
agent in Edinburgh, " seemed exasperated against one 
another to the highest degree ; the governments seemed 
bent to act counter to one another in all their councils ; 
trade clashed between them in all its circumstances . . . ; 
England laid a new impost upon Scots cloth ; Scotland 



prohibited all the EngUsh woollen manufacture in general, 
and erected manufactories among themselves. . . . Scot- 
land freely and openly exported their wool to France. 
Germany, and Sweden, to the irreparable loss of the 
English manufactures, having great quantities of Enghsh 
wool brought into Scotland over the borders, which it 
was impossible for England to prevent. . . . England 
was proceeding to prohibit the importation of Scots cattle 
and to interrupt b}' force their trade with France ; and 
had this last proceeded to practice, all the world could 
not have prevented a war between both nations." 

When Anne's only Scottish Parliament met for its 
third session in June. 1705, a letter was read from the 
Queen in which she instructed the Estates to "go to the 
settlement of the succession before all other business," 
and earnestly recommended the passing of "an Act for 
a Commission to set a Treaty on foot between the king- 
doms, as our ParHament of England has done." After 
two months' debates an Act for the appointment of a 
Commission was carried, on August 31. Xext day, the 
leader of the anti-Unionists, the Duke of Hamilton, pro- 
posed that the nomination of the Commissioners should 
be left to the Queen. His party was taken by surprise 
and the motion was carried. The full effect of their 
leader's treachery was not at first apparent, but this 
decision meant that nearly all the Scottish representa- 
tives were men resolved to bring about a Union on almost 
any terms. Both sides impressed Defoe as coming 
together " with the true spirit of the Union among them," 
and as determined " to pursue it by all the most proper 
methods to bring it to pass." Xot the expediency of 
a Union, but the terms on which a Union could be accom- 
plished, formed the subject discussed by the Com- 

Their task was rendered much easier by the English 
elections of 1705. The glories of Blenheim gave the 



Whigs a majority, and Godolpliin and his colleagues 
were able to approach the question of Union without fear 
of Parliamentary difficulties at home. In Scotland, the 
Country party had been weakened by a division in its 
ranks, and the Government was more likely to be able 
to carry its projects. The Presbyterian party had a 
majority in the Estates ; they were undoubtedly sensitive 
about any danger to the EstabKshment, but, on the 
other hand, they represented the commercial interests 
of the nation, and to them, if to them alone, freedom of 
trade was a positive inducement to consent to the in- 
corporation of Scotland with England. Members of the 
other parties might have been persuaded to accept a 
federal Union, and there was much talk of some such 
compromise. But a federal Union would have left open 
the possibility of secession, and would have been an 
inadequate guarantee of the security of the Hanoverian 
House, and Queen Anne's Enghsh [Ministers wisely 
decided, in the words of Defoe, to be satisfied with nothing 
less than " a general, compleat, intire and indissoluable 
Union of interests and parties, depending upon equalities 
of privileges, and equaUties of bm^dens ; equalities of 
prospects, and equalities, if possible, in desires." 

The policy of concihation was inaugurated by the 
repeal of the Aliens Act which threatened hostilities 
against Scottish trade. Its existence had almost wrecked 
the prehminaries of Union in the Scottish ParHament, 
and when the new Enghsh ParHament assembled the 
Queen advised its repeal, which was earned, not without 
opposition. English and Scottish Commissioners met 
on April 16, 1706, and the Treaty of Union was completed 
by July 23. The Scottish members of the Commission 
were at once given the choice between accepting the 
principle of an incorporating Union, and putting an end 
to the discussions. On April 25 they assented to an entire 

T. &• Ji. Annan &■ Sons. 


James Francis Edward Keith was exiled for his share in the '15 : attained great distinc- 
tion in the service of Russia, and afterwards in that of Prussia ; was made Field -Marshal by 
Frederick the Great in 1747 : and was mortally wounded at Hochkirk in 1757. 

From the painting by Blakey. 


Union, "with one and the same ParHament," on con- 
dition that " all the subjects of the United Kangdom of 
Great Britain shall have full freedom and intercourse 
of trade and navigation," and their English colleagues 
agreed to the provision as " a necessary consequence for 
an entire Union." After this, the negotiations went 
easily on, although financial questions caused many 
difficulties in detail. The retention of the system of 
Scots law satisfied the lawyers, who might have been 
dangerous opponents of the scheme both in the Estates 
and in the country, and it was equally necessary to promise 
the preservation of heritable jurisdictions, if the treaty 
was to have any chance of success. The Scots agreed to 
accept, with certain exemptions, the English system of 
taxation, and they were to receive the sum of £398,085 10s. 
as an " Equivalent " for the share which the country 
would take in the English National Debt, and as com- 
pensation for the losses of the Darien and other companies. 
The representation of Scotland in the united Parliament 
was the portion of the treaty least satisfactory? to the 
Scottish Commissioners. With difficulty, they obtained 
a representation of forty-five in the British House of 
Commons. It was impossible to regard the number as 
adequate, but the English Commissioners definitely 
informed them " that they could go no farther, upon 
which the Scots Commissioners, from the same zeal for 
bringing the treaty to a conclusion, acquiesced." If 
the Scottish representatives had been elected by the 
Estates, the treaty might well have been wrecked upon 
this point, if it had ever got so far. Of the forty -five 
members, thirty were ultimately, in accordance with the 
suggestion of the Scottish Parliament, allotted to the 
shires ; each shire was to elect one representative, except 
the three groups of Bute and Caithness, Clackmannan, 
and Kinross, and Nairn, and Cromarty. In each of these 




groups, an election was to be made alternately by the 
two counties ; thus Bute, Clackmannan, and Nairn each 
elected a member in 1708, and Caithness, Kinross, and 
Cromarty in 1710. The royal burghs, which alone were 
represented in the Scottish Estates, were (except Edin- 
burgh which had a member of its own) divided into 
fourteen groups, each possessing one member. The 
various burghs in each group were to " elect a Com- 
missioner in the same manner as they are now in use 
to elect Commissioners to the Parhament of Scotland," 
and the Commissioners were to meet and choose the 
member. The Scottish representation in the Lords was 
even less adequate than in the Commons, for the peers 
of Scotland were to elect to each Parliament sixteen 
representatives. This provision was, however, not hkely 
to be fatal to the treaty, for the Scottish peerage was to 
be closed, and the nobles who had complained of recent 
creations of " upstart lords " were gratified by a measure 
which would prevent " reducing their honour by multiply- 
ing their numbers," and would "distinguish them from 
. . . the modern nobility." 

The Scottish Estates met on October 3 to consider 
the terms of the treaty. They had themselves forbidden 
the Commissioners to discuss " any alteration of the 
worship, discipline, and government of the Church of this 
kingdom as now by law established." The treaty, 
therefore, contained no provision for the security of the 
Church, and, in the excited state of the country, this 
omission, dictated by the Scottish Parliament itself, was 
likely to cause serious alarm. The Queen's speech 
invited the Parliament to bring in a measure for the 
security of the Established Church, and on November 12 
an " Act for securing the Protestant religion and Presby- 
terian Church Government " was passed, and was subse- 
quently admitted by the English Parliament to be " in 


all times coming an essential and fundamental part of 
the Union." Carstares and the leaders of the Church 
were satisfied, but a large proportion of the clergy, sharing 
in the violent antipathy with which an incorporating 
Union was almost universally regarded, used their in- 
fluence against the measure. James VI. had thought 
that freedom of trade would make the Scots consent to 
a Union in three days, but now that freedom of trade 
was offered, national feeling was so strong that the 
Government could not rely on the support of the bur- 
gesses in the Estates. The representative of Glasgow, 
which, more than any other town in Scotland, was to 
gain by the Union, consistently supported amendments 
which would have wrecked it, and in the end voted for 
its rejection. From October, 1706, to January, 1707, the 
debates went on, and addresses poured in from burghs 
and parishes all over the country, protesting against the 
surrender of national independence. There were serious 
riots in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dumfries ; and plots 
for an armed raid upon the capital induced the Estates 
to suspend the operation of the militia clauses of the 
Act of Security. On January 16 the Treaty, having 
undergone some slight modifications, was carried by 
110 votes to 68. Forty-two nobles, 38 country gentle- 
men, and 30 burgesses voted for the ratification ; the 
minority was composed of 19 nobles, 30 country gentle- 
men, and 19 burgesses. The division did not follow the 
old ecclesiastical lines ; burgesses from the Presbyterian 
South (including the representatives of Edinburgh, 
Glasgow, and New Galloway) voted in the minority, and 
members sent from the episcopal north (Elgin, Banff, 
Nairn, Inverurie) supported the Union. Seventeen of 
the sixty-six burgess members did not vote. The Treaty 
was carried in the English Parliament with the addition of 
an Act for the security of the Church of England, and 



received the ro^-al assent on March 6, 1707, and, nineteen 
dsbjs later, amid riot and uproar, and with howls of 
execration sounding in their ears, the Estates of Scotland 
met for the last time. 

After agreeing to the Treaty of Union, the Scottish 
ParUament had elected forty-five members to sit in the 
existing House of Commons at Westminster, and they 
took their places at the opening of its next session, in 
October. The General Election of 1708 gave something 
like national sanction for the Union, possibly because of 
the attempted French invasion in the beginning of that 
year. By the date of the next election, in 1710, Scotland 
was disillusioned and bitter antagonism to the Union 
added Scottish members to the Tory majority in Anne's 
last Parhament. Commercial questions and the payment 
of the Equivalent led to serious irritation ; the Scots 
resented an Act which abohshed their own, and introduced 
the Enghsh, law of treason, and, in the words of Professor 
Hume BroT^-n, Every interest of Scotland was regarded 
and treated purely and simply with reference to the 
exigencies of political parties in England." Under the 
Tory rule of the last yesivs of Anne's reign the feehng 
became still more bitter. The Act of Union had provided 
that no Court sitting in Westminster Hall should receive 
appeals from the Court of Session.* In 1710 the House 
of Lords, not sitting in Westminster Hall, reversed a 
decision of the Court of Session in a case in which the 
Presbytery of Edinburgh had prosecuted an episcopal 
clergyman for reading the Anghcan Liturgy. In 1710 
a Toleration Act was passed to protect Scottish Epis- 
copahans, while Enghsh Presbyterians were almost 
simultaneously" subjected to fresh disabilities. In 1712, 

* I am indebted to Professor Dicey for calling my attention to this 
phrase in the Act of Union, which seems to have been intended to 
convey an impression that decisions of the Court of Session would not 
be liable to revision by the House of Lords. 



b}^ a gross breach of the agreement made at the Union, 
lay patronage was restored in the Church of Scotland. 
New taxation pressed heavily on the Scots, who found 
that their trade had, as yet, rather diminished than 
increased. In 1713 a motion for the repeal of the Union 
was defeated in the Lords by a majority of four. 

But, unpopular as the Union was at the death of Queen 
Anne in 1714, hatred of Popery and of Prelacy alike was 
strong enough to ensure the peaceful accession of King 
George. In the last months of the Queen's reign, there 
had been fears tl\at the English Tories would join with 
the Scottish Jacobites to restore King James, and the 
Whig Ministers of the new Sovereign were necessarily 
regarded as the allies of Lowland and Presbyterian 
Scotland, and to his first Parliament the Scots sent a large 
proportion of Whigs. The Jacobites prepared for a 
rising under the Earl of Mar, who had been disappointed 
both in the results of the Union which he had helped to 
carry, and in the treatment which he personally received 
from the Ministers of George I. Mar was an incom- 
petent leader who could not keep his secrets ; Louis XIV. 
died, and the new French Government failed to support 
the insurrection, and it never seriously endangered the 
Government. The standard was raised at Braemar on 
September 6 ; the J acobites of the North rallied round 
it, and James VIII. was proclaimed at Aberdeen, Brechin, 
and Dundee. On the 28th Mar entered Perth, which 
became his headquarters for the campaign. Inverness 
had already been taken by Mackintosh of Borlum, who 
some weeks later accomplished the feat of transporting 
by night, in small boats, about 1,500 men across the 
Firth of Forth, and, after an attempt to take Edinburgh, 
marched to join the Jacobite force on the borders. An 
equally daring attack on Edinburgh Castle miscarried, 
but a Government vessel was captured in the harbour at 



Burntisland, and its military stores were carried to Perth. 
The Earl of Der went water and Mr. Forster led the Jaco- 
bites of the North of England, and along with Lords 
Kenmure, Nithsdale, Carnwath, and Wintoun, and the 
Dumfrieshire Jacobites, they marched to Preston, where, 
after two days' fighting, they surrendered on Novem- 
ber 14. Mar remained at Perth till November 10, waiting 
in vain for the arrival of King James and a French army, 
and on the 13th he fought the Battle of Sheriff muir, near 
Dunblane, in which the Government troops were com- 
manded by the Duke of Argyll. A well-known ballad 
describes the dra^Mi Battle of Sheriff muir, "in which," 
v-Tote the future Marshal Keith who fought for King 
James, " neither side gained much honour, but which 
vv^as the entire ruin of our party." Mar, instead of march- 
ing on Edinburgh, had to retire to Perth, and when King 
James landed near Peterhead, on December 22, with only 
a few attendants, there was nothing for him to do but to 
return to France. He spent three weeks in Perth, during 
which the country between Perth and Stirling was cruelly 
devastated to hamper Argyll's northward march. On 
January 30, the Jacobites left Perth and James escaped 
by sea from Montrose. 

The Lowlanders would not fight for King James, but 
they would not find guilty of treason the men who had 
followed Mar, and the sympathy which already existed 
for the Highlanders was increased by the action of the 
Government in trying prisoners at Carlisle. The Whig 
Ministers of George L, apart from this breach of the 
Treaty of Union, behaved with restraint and moderation 
in dealing with the prisoners, but they roused indigna- 
tion by their treatment of forfeited estates, and, as 
Lowland burghs subscribed for the defence of the prisoners 
at Carlisle, so the Court of Session devised legal obstacles 
to prevent the English Government from making money 


out of the forfeitures. In 1717 an Act of Pardon was 
passed for all Jacobites except the unfortunate Mac- 
Gregors, whose wrongs were successfully avenged by- 
Rob Roy. A Jacobite movement, on a more formidable 
scale, including an invasion of England by an army from 
Sweden and Spain, alarmed the Government in 1718, 
but the death of Charles XII. of Sweden prevented the 
invasion, and a small Spanish force, which received Httle 
support from the Highlanders, was defeated at Glenshiel 
in June, 1719. 

When the Jacobites made their fresh effort in 1745, 
the throne of the House of Hanover was saved by much 
the same considerations as in 1715. Trade had not made 
such progress as the supporters of the Union had hoped, 
though the foreign trade of Glasgow and Greenock had 
laid the foundations of their future commercial greatness. 
The lapse of thirty years had increased the general dis- 
inclination to disturb the existing state of affairs, but 
the opposition of the Lowlanders to Prince Charles 
Edward was based on the same hatred of Popery as had 
ruined the cause of his father in the Fifteen. The Govern- 
ment of George I. and George II. had done little to 
popularize the new dynasty or the Union. Argyll, in 
spite of his services at Sheriffmuir, was too intimate a 
friend of the Prince of Wales to remain a Minister of 
George I., and he was dismissed in 1716, and though two 
years later he was created Duke of Greenwich, he did 
not come into power till 1725, when the riots which 
followed the institution of the Malt Tax compelled 
Walpole to seek his help. From 1725 till the fall of 
Walpole in 1742, Argyll was the uncrowned King of 
Scotland, and the period of his rule was marked by the 
formation of General Wade's famous roads through the 
Highlands. The Porteous Riot at Edinburgh in 1736 
was a defiance of the Government which might have led 



to the fall of Argyll and his brother, Lord Islay, but they 
were supported by Queen Caroline. With the offence 
of smuggling, which was the original cause of the trouble, 
the Scots had the strongest sympathy, and the measures 
taken to avenge the insulted majesty of the law caused 
widespread indignation. 

When Prince Charles Edward raised the standard at 
Glenfinnan in 1745, he had an even smaller chance of 
ultimate success than Mar and his followers thirty years 
before. The Scottish Lowlands were as hostile as ever, 
and though the north-eastern counties once again 
evinced their loyalty to the Stewart House, a number 
of Highland chiefs, through the influence of Duncan 
Forbes of Culloden, were loyal to the Government. 
The Prince never commanded a force so large as had 
been at the disposal of Mar in the autumn of 1715. 
In England Jacobitism was a spent force, for the years 
of peace which Walpole had given to the country had 
satisfied even the squire and the parson that a revolution 
was against the real interest of the country. But the 
time of the Rising was well chosen. Great Britain was 
engaged in a Continental war, and the folly of the Ministry 
had prevented their taking proper precautions against 
an insurrection which they had good reason for believing 
to be imminent. From Glenfinnan, Prince Charles 
marched on Edinburgh. Sir John Cope, instead of re- 
maining near Stirling to guard the Lowlands, had moved 
towards Fort Augustus in the hope of putting an end to 
the rebellion. At Dalwhinnie, the Prince and his 2,000 
Highlanders were ready to meet him, but their position 
was too strong to assault, and Cope decided to make 
for Inverness and to avoid a conflict. At Perth, on 
September 4, King James VIII. was a second time 
proclaimed, and on the 16th Prince Charles demanded 
the surrender of Edinburgh. The town was not prepared 



for a siege, the Provost was suspected of Jacobite sym- 
pathies, and Cope, who had marched from Inverness to 
Aberdeen, and embarked his troops, had not reached the 
port of Dunbar. On the morning of the 17th a Jacobite 
force entered the city, and the Prince made his triumphal 

" When they came into the suburbs," says Lord Elcho, 
who accompanied Charles to Holyrood, " the crowd was 
prodigious, and all wishing the prince prosperity ; in 
short, nobody doubted but that he would be joined by 
10,000 men at Edinburgh if he could arm them." About 
300 recruits, in fact, joined his army. " The commons 
in general, as well as two -thirds of the gentry, at that 
period, had," in the opinion of Alexander Carlyle, after- 
wards minister of Inveresk, " no aversion to the family 
of Stewart, and could their religion have been secured, 
would have been very glad to see them on the throne 
again." This attitude of hypothetical acquiescence was 
of small assistance to the Prince, who had to rely on his 
2,500 Highlanders. On September 18 Sir John Cope 
landed at Dunbar, and on the 21st he met Charles at 
Prestonpans. The battle " did not last full a quarter of 
an hour " ; young Carlyle, who had ordered the housemaid 
to call him " the moment the battle began," had scarcely 
put on his clothes when his father, who was watching 
from the steeple of the church at Prestonpans, announced 
that *' we were completely defeated," and already " the 
whole prospect was filled with runaways, and High- 
landers pursuing them." Cope had been surprised and 
his artillery rendered useless, and Charles Edward com- 
manded the only army in Scotland. His officers prevented 
his carrying out his intention of advancing at once into 
England, and he remained at Edinburgh till the end of 
October. " The Court at the Abbey was dull and 
sombre," is Carlyle's comment upon the six weeks during 



which the wanderer occupied the palace of Mary Stewart ; 
" the Prince was melancholy, he seemed to have no con- 
fidence in anybody, not even in the ladies, who were 
much his friends." The castle was never in his power ; 
he attempted to starve out the garrison, but when they 
retaliated by firing on the town, the Prince withdrew 
his order. He did not fail to show mercy ; on the field 
of Prestonpans, he attended to the wounded of the enemy, 
and he forbade public rejoicings for a victory over his 
father's misguided subjects. 

Charles Edward had been taught to beheve that the 
Electors of Hanover were cruel tyrants from whom the 
people of Great Britain were longing for dehverance. 
These weeks at Edinburgh showed him his error. After 
his victory at Prestonpans the Highlanders increased 
in numbers to about 4,500 foot and 400 horse, but the 
Lowlands remained apathetic, and day after day passed 
without news of any Jacobite movement in the North of 
England. On November 9 the Prince's force crossed the 
border, but a fifth of his men had already deserted, and 
no Englishmen came to take their places. Carlisle sur- 
rendered, after some resistance, and as Charles continued 
his hopeless march by Penrith, Preston, and Manchester 
to Derby, he was joined only by some 300 recruits from 
Manchester. On December 4 the Highlanders entered 
Derby. Wade was in the North of England with an army 
which Charles had eluded ; the Duke of Cumberland was 
at Lichfield ; their combined forces would outnumber 
the Highlanders five or six times. Next day. Lord 
George Murray told the Prince that " the Scots had done 
all that could be expected of them ... if he could produce 
any letter from any person of distinction in which there 
was an invitation for the army to go to London, they were 
ready to go." Charles yielded unwillingly. He beheved 
that the consciences of the Elector's troops would forbid 




them to fight against their natural Prince, and that " he 
should enter St. James's with as little difficulty as he 
had done Holyrood House." He had to give way to 
a Council of War, and on Friday, December 7, the retreat 
began ; the Prince " who had marched all the way to 
Derby on foot at the head of a column of infantry, now 
mounted on horseback, and rode generally after the van 
of the army and appeared out of humour . ' ' The admirable 
discipline of his force was relaxed, and the country was 
unfriendly. On the 20th they recrossed the Border, 
leaving a garrison of 200 doomed men in the castle at 
Carlisle. Charles, with the larger portion of his army, 
marched by Dumfries to Glasgow, exacting a money 
contribution from both towns. In spite of the efforts of 
Duncan Forbes, reinforcements awaited the Prince on 
his return to Scotland, and he undertook the siege of 
Stirling Castle. General Hawley was sent to its relief. 
Charles turned back, defeated him at Falkirk on 
January 17, and continued the siege of Stirling Castle. 
It was again the duty of Lord George Murray to insist 
on a retreat. The officers pointed out that " vast numbers 
of their men were gone home," and that they were no 
way in a condition to face Cumberland's army. The 
Jacobites left Stirling on February 1, and Cumberland 
entered it on the 2nd. " Never was there a retreat 
resembled so much a flight," but they crossed the Forth 
in safety, and marched in three divisions to attack 
Inverness. At Moy, Charles narrowly escaped capture, 
but on February 18 he entered Inverness. The castle 
surrendered, and, early in March, Fort Augustus fell into 
his hands. In the last flicker of hope, Charles rehed on 
help from France ; he enjoyed shooting-parties, gave balls, 
and danced with the ladies of Inverness, though he had 
declined to dance at Holyrood. Meanwhile Cumberland 
had marched northwards by Perth, Montrose, and Aber- 


Born at Rome in 1720, landed in Inverness-shire in 1745, defeated at Culloden Moor on April 16, 
174C, and died at Rome in 1788. 

A miniature presented by the Prince to "the Gentle Lochiel," and preserved at Achnacarry. 



deen, and on the 14th reached Nairn. The French re- 
inforcements, to which Charles looked for aid, were pre- 
vented from landing, and his exhausted and ill-fed force 
of 5,000 men had to meet 9,000 trained soldiers under 
the Duke. On April 15, Charles marched to CuUoden, 
and an attempt was made to repeat the surprise attack 
at Prestonpans. But the Highlanders were no longer 
equal to such an enterprise, and a march, begun at eight 
o'clock at night, ended in the return of a tired army to 
CuUoden at six o'clock in the morning of April 16. 
Cumberland began the attack soon after midday ; his 
artillery broke up the clans ; gallant charges were un- 
avaiUng ; and the disaster was final and complete. The 
Prince escaped from the field, to wander, supported and 
protected by Highland love and loyalty, until the follow- 
ing September, when, at last, he made good his escape 
to France. The Duke of Cumberland took the cruel 
revenge which earned him the nickname of the Butcher, 
and the Government disarmed the Highlanders, and pro- 
hibited the use of the Highland dress. 

After the Forty-Five, a series of influences began to 
work in the Highlands, analogous to those which had 
changed the civilizlation of the Lowlands centuries 
before. The task of the Hanoverian Government was 
in some respects more difficult than that of the descendants 
of Malcolm Canmore. In the interval, the clan organiza- 
tion had greatly developed, and clan loyalty had assumed 
the force of an extravagant devotion. The Church, 
which had helped to anglicize the Lowlands, was adverse 
to the process when at last it reached the Highlands. 
The translation of the Bible into Gaelic secured the 
permanence of Gaelic as the language of Highland re- 
ligion, and trade and commerce were of too little import- 
ance to render much assistance to the English tongue. 
On the other hand, the Jacobite risings had weakened 



the Highlands, and introduced elements of disunion, and 
the strongest support of the clan system, the joint owner- 
ship of land, had already been destroyed by the feudal 
laws which ignored its existence, and regarded the chief 
as the sole proprietor. The clan, as a military unit, ceased 
to exist when the Highlands were disarmed, and as a unit 
for administratiTe purposes, when the heritable jmis- 
dictions, which successive Kings of Scotland had deplored 
as the ruin of the country, were aboHshed in 1747. A 
change of civihzation, \\ithout a racial displacement, 
has been taking place in the Highlands since the reign of 
George II. By 1773, it had made such progress that 
Dr. Johnson thought that there had never been "any 
change of national manners, so quick, so great, and so 
general." The changes cannot, unfortunately, be aU 
ascribed to legislation and the widening of intercourse 
^ith the Lowlands and with England. Already in 1773, 
Dr. Johnson noticed that "the chiefs, divested of their 
prerogatives, necessarily turn their thoughts to the 
improvement of their revenues, and expect more rent, 
as they have less homage," and to the raising of rents 
with too much eagerness " he attributed the large 
amount of emigration of which he was told. " Some 
method to stop this epidemic desire of wandering deserves 
to be sought with great diHgence," he wrote, and he 
questioned whether " the general good does not require 
that the landlords be, for a time, restrained in their 
demands, and kept quiet by pensions proportionate to 
their loss." Emigration was partially the natural result 
of over-crowding in so barren a country, but it is im- 
possible to defend the " clearances " which took place 
in the ednly nineteenth century, when " sheep became 
devourers of men," and large districts of the Highlands 
were deliberately depopulated for the introduction of 
sheep farms. 



The real interest of the period between the suppres- 
sion of the Forty-Five and the outbreak of the French 
Revolution lies in the literary life of the country. Scot- 
land, governed at first by the Duke of Argyll, and later 
by the first Lord Mehdlle and his son, played an un- 
distinguished part in the politics of the nation. The 
questions in which the people were interested vv^ere con- 
nected with such domestic concerns as the deeply resented 
refusal in 1760 to sanction the creation of a Scottish 
mihtia, the scarcity of meal which led to riots in 1772, 
the successful opposition in 1779 to a moderate measure 
of Catholic relief, and the abolition of the serfdom of 
colliers and salters, commenced in 1775, but not completed 
till 1799. The Augustan Age of Kterature and of thought 
in Scotland is the first part of the reign of George III., 
when Robertson, David Hume, John Home, Hugh Blair, 
Lord Kames, Lord Monboddo, and Lord Hailes were 
writing in Edinburgh, Adam Smith in Glasgow, and 
Thomas Reid, George Campbell, and James Beattie in 
Aberdeen. In medicine, in chemistry, and in the history 
of invention, Scotland was also famous, and the intellectual 
revival could not fail to lead to demands for a great 
constitutional advance. 

The energies of Scottish reformers were divided between 
Parliamentary and municipal institutions. The total 
number of county electors was absurdly small ; in no 
county did the electorate much exceed 200, and Bute, 
which returned a member to every alternate Parliament, 
possessed only twelve. Readers of Gait's Provost will 
understand the working of burgh representation and the 
general state of corruption in the burghs, of which his 
picture of Gudetown is no exaggeration. The right of 
a Town Council to elect to vacancies in its own body, 
carefully, though not always quite successfully manipu- 
lated by Provost Pawkie, was derived from an Act of the 



reign of James III., and was the origin of much of the 
municipal corruption. Before the outbreak of the French 
Revolution, Parliamentary reform had the support of 
Pitt and Dundas, but the municipal reformers found no 
such assistance. The Revolution postponed the settle- 
ment of the question for many years. At its beginning, 
it excited sympathy in Scotland as in England ; even 
so stout a Tory as Sir Walter Scott remarks that it was 
natural for his old schoolmaster Dr. Adam, the great 
Rector of the Edinburgh High School, to approve the 
principles of the Revolution, " for all his ideas of existing 
government were derived from his experience of the 
town council of Edinburgh." But as events developed 
in France, and as the wilder members of the constitu- 
tional " Society of the Friends of the People " and of 
the much more extreme revolutionary societies gave the 
impression that their intention was to introduce into 
Great Britain the methods as well as the principles of 
the French, public alarm became widespread. The 
Government prosecuted the leaders of the movement for 
reform, and they could look for no mercy and little justice 
in the law-courts. " With all their prepossessions," says 
Lord Cockburn, whose Memorials give us much the best 
picture of this time, " the judges were not cruel, nor ever 
consciously unfair. But being terrified, and trying those 
who were causing their alarm, they could scarcely be ex- 
pected to enter the temple of justice in a state of perfect 
composure. . . . But I fear that no impartial censor can 
avoid detecting, throughout the whole course of the trials, 
not mere casual indication of bias, but absolute straining 
for convictions." In August, 1773, Thomas Muir was 
sentenced to transportation for fourteen years, and the 
severity of the sentence was in keeping with the unfair- 
ness of the trial. There were several other sufferers, but 
the war with France diverted attention from domestic 

DK. ALEXANDER CARLYLE (1722-1 S05). Page 297. 
From a painting by A. Skircing in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh. 


affairs, and the dangers of French invasion made the 
defence of the country the most pressing consideration. 
For twenty years, says Cockburn, " the whole moraHty 
of patriotism was sunk in the single object of acknow- 
ledging no defect or grievance in our own system in order 
that we might be powerful abroad." After the fall of 
Napoleon, the Tories continued bhnd to the change which 
that event had produced, and " resistance of innovation 
clung to them after it had become plainly absurd." The 
economic changes which followed the Napoleonic wars 
increased the natural rebound from Toryism, and from 
1816 onwards there were many indications of unrest, 
which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and the 
passing of the " Six Acts " of 1819 failed to suppress. 
In 1819 there were fresh prosecutions for sedition, con- 
ducted differently from that of Muir, and in 1820 there 
were serious riots at Glasgow. During a lull in the con- 
troversy, George IV. paid, in 1822, the first State visit 
to Scotland since the coronation of Charles I., and though 
many passions had been aroused by his treatment of 
Queen CaroHne, the influence of the greatest and noblest 
name in Scottish Hterature was sufficient to gain for him 
an enthusiastic reception. By the time of Sir Walter 
Scott, the Highlanders had come to speak of Lowland 
Scots as Saxons, and to beHeve that the GaeHc tongue 
connoted a difference of origin and race ; and Sir Walter, 
both in poetry and romance, had not failed to make 
picturesque use of the theory. But in arranging the 
King's welcome to Edinburgh, he contrived that the 
Highlanders should appear as the most typical and 
distinctive of Scotsmen, and the innocent monarch was 
so deeply impressed by kil't and bagpipes, that he gave 
the toast of " the Chieftains and Clans of Scotland " as 
equivalent to that of the Scottish people. In creating 
enthusiasm for the story and for the scenery of the High- 




lands, Scott did not a little to reunite the national feeling 
of Scotland, and the gradual conversion of the greater 
portion of the Highlanders to Presbyterianism had by 
this time removed one of the differences most notable 
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 

Under George IV., there were some tentative efforts 
at a reform of the burghs, and Cathohc Emancipation 
gained the support of a large and influentigd minority. 
F " ^ " 'r demand for a reform of the Parhamentary system 
L- ..jt died away, and the excitement was intense 
during the final struggle for the Pvcform Bill. The 
Scottish Reform Act of 1S32 raised the representation of 
Sc-otland from forty-five to fifty-three, by the addition 
of eight to the burgh members. Edinburgh and Glasgow 
received two members each. Aberdeen. Paisley, Perth, 
Dundee, and Greenock, one each ; the groups of burghs 
were re-aiTanged, the elections were taken out of the 
hands of the Town Councds. and the franchise was con- 
ferred upon householders with a £10 qualification. The 
reform of the burghs followed in 1S33. and the citizens 
were empowered to elect their municipal rulers. In the 
counties, the Reform A:": :: 1S32 gave the franchise to 
lease-holders as well as ::■ ixce-holders. Lodger fi'anchise 
LQ the burg^ - - ; s introduced by the Act of 1867. and 
the quahfications for both freeholders and tenants were 
reduced in the counties. By the Redistribution Act of 
1868, the number of members was increased to sisrty, 
and in 1SS4-S.5, the franchise was further extended, 
and the number of members was increased to seventy-two. 
Glasgow now sends seven representatives to the House 
of Commons. Edinburgh four, and Aberdeen and Ehindee 
two each. The county of Lanark has been given six 
members, and Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire, Fife, Perthshire, 
Renfrewshire, two members each. The distribution of 
Parliamentary representation gives some clue to the vast 



economic changes which since the suppression of the 
Forty-Five have been at work in Scotland. The effect of 
improved methods of agriculture, the rise of the system 
of banking, the manufacture of cotton, the development 
of mineral resources, the growth of fishing, and the 
expansion of home and foreign trade which followed the 
invention of the steam-engine, cannot be summarized 
in a paragraph, and it is not for this generation to judge 
of the effect upon the making of the nation of the enormous 
increase of wealth in modern times. 

The transference of national interests from religious 
controversy to commercial progress which marked the 
eighteenth century has never been complete, and there 
were periods in both the eighteenth and the nineteenth 
century when theological discussion was once again the 
predominant force in the country. From the beginning 
of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, 
there were two parties in the National Church. A con- 
siderable minority consistently watched and resented 
any interference by the State with the principle of 
spiritual independence, of which a partial and dubious 
admission had been made at the Revolution. The 
restoration of patronage afforded a permanent cause of 
trouble, but there were various other subjects of dispute. 
For some years, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, 
the Abjuration Oath which, as a provision against 
Jacobitism, was imposed upon every minister of the 
Church, included the admission that the Sovereign of 
Scotland ought to be a member of the Church of England. 
A hundred years later, on the accession of George IV., 
an Order in Council was issued that every minister and 
preacher should pray in express words " for his most 
sacred Majesty King George, and all the royal family." 
There was a double objection to the order. Express 
words violated the theory of extempore prayer, and the 



prohibition to pray specifically for Queen Caroline was 
resented as deeply as the Cromwellian prohibition to 
pray for King Charles II. had been, and the Order was 
the subject of a long debate in the Assembly. By 1820, 
there had been a series of secessions from the Established 
Church, arising almost entirely from results brought 
about by the Patronage Act, but wide differences of opinion 
continued within the Church itself. The " Moderate " 
party, whose aim had been to prevent the wild claims of 
the seventeenth century from endangering the Revolution 
settlement, was, at first, greatly strengthened by the 
Patronage Act, which had been passed by Tories and 
Jacobites in order to place the clergy under the control 
of the landowners. The death of Queen Anne, and the 
measures taken after the suppression of the Rising in 
1715, rendered it impossible to employ the Act in the 
interest of Jacobitism, which, in the Established Church, 
came to an end with the numerous depositions of clergy- 
men concerned in the rebellion. The Moderate clergy 
of the middle of the eighteenth century were eminent in 
literature and in philosophy, and Moderates like Thomas 
Reid are among the greatest names in Scottish history. 
The identification of Episcopacy with Jacobitism in 1745 
reduced the strength of the Episcopal Church as a rival 
to the Establishment, but, in the reign of George III., 
the Scottish Episcopalians became loyal to the House 
of Hanover, and the Moderates in the Church of Scotland 
were weakened by the severance of their association with 
the landowners, many of whom were attached to Epis- 
copacy. A long period of predominance had ruined the 
Moderates as leaders of public opinion in Scotland, and 
the closing years of the eighteenth century witnessed a 
revolt against them. Episcopalians and Seceders rapidly 
increased in numbers, and the Evangelical party gained 
a majority in the General Assembly. Like the Tories 


in national politics, the Moderates had failed to adjust 
themselves to new conditions and new interests. 

The early years of the eighteenth century were marked 
by the great Evangelical Revival, led by Andrew Thomson 
and Thomas Chalmers. The Evangelical party regarded 
themselves as the inheritors of the traditions of Knox, 
and they were certainly the disciples of Andrew Melville 
and Alexander Henderson. The operation of the Patron- 
age Act was, therefore, sure to cause trouble, and from 
1833 to 1843 the Evangelicals were engaged in a " Ten 
Years' Conflict " with the Moderates, and with the State. 
In the Assembly of 1833, Dr. Chalmers, while denying 
that " the Church was necessarily to become more Chris- 
tian by the constitution of it becoming more popular," 
moved that the dissent of a majority of male heads of 
families in communion with the Church should compel 
a Presbytery to refuse a presentation to a parish. The 
right of patronage in Scotland was not absolute, and a 
Presbytery had the power of judging of the fitness of 
a minister presented to a parish within its bounds, but 
the Moderates, regarding this motion as ultra vires, 
carried an amendment by which Presbyteries were to 
take into consideration popular disapproval as well as 
the life and doctrine of the candidate. In 1834 the 
stronger motion was carried, and, as the " Veto Act," it 
became the central issue of the conflict. Within a few 
months, the Presbytery of Auchterarder had to consider 
a case which came within the terms of the Act, and, with 
the consent of the Assembly of 1835, it declined to present 
a candidate to whom a majority of male heads of families 
objected. The Court of Session in 1837 decided that 
the presentation was valid, and that the Assembly's 
Veto Act was ultra vires as an infringement of the 
Patronage Act of Queen Anne, and their decision was 
upheld by the House of Lords in 1839. In a similar case 



in xlberdeenshire; the Presbytery of Strathbogie, by a 
majority, resolved to obey tlie law of the land, and the 
Assembh' suspended the seven ministers who had defied 
its authority. The minority of the Presbj'tery, under 
instructions from the Assembly, made provisions for 
services in the parishes of the suspended ministers, 
who appealed for protection to the civil courts. In 
1841 the Assembl}' deposed them from the ministry, 
and the Court of Session interdicted the Assemblj-'s 
representatives from preaching in the parishes of the 
deposed ministers. 

The Veto Act was in itself reasonable, and elsewhere 
than in the Presbyteries of Auchterarder and Strathbogie 
it had worked well. Parliamentary' sanction for its 
provisions would have been the best way out of the 
difficulty, but efforts in this direction failed, and a petition 
against patronage from the Assembly of 1842 was dis- 
regarded by the Government. The interdict of the Court 
of Session upon preaching in the Strathbogie parishes, 
although it was not enforced, had raised the question of 
spiritual independence in an acute form, and the Assembly 
of 1842, by 241 votes to 111, adopted a Claim, Declara- 
tion, and Protest, in which it was asserted that Parha- 
mentary statutes " passed without the consent of the 
Church and nation "to alter the Government, discipline, 
rights, and pri^dleges of the Church, and sentences of 
courts of law contravening its government and privileges 
" are in themselves void and null, and of no legal force 
or effect." James Melville had complained that Morton 
would not allow Christ to reign freely." The same 
position was taken up when the Assembly of 1842 pro- 
tested against the dishonom- done to Christ's crown, 
and the rejection of His sole and supreme authority as 
King of His Church." The dispute was settled, for the 
time, when, in 1843, more than 400 ministers left the 



Establishment and founded the Free Church of Scotland. 
There was much personal suffering, for the seceders gave 
up church and manse, and many things that they held 
dear, and those whom they left behind were subjected 
to the pain of misunderstanding and misrepresentation ; 
to both came the severance of old friendships in th^ bitter 
feeling of the time. About sixty years afterwards, a 
small minority of the Fre^e Church appealed to the law- 
courts against the decision of the General Assembly to 
unite with oth,er Scottish Pi;esbyterians outsid,e the 
EstabHshment, and the State once again r.efused to admit 
the claim of Church Courts to independency. The dis- 
ruption of 1843, apart from its resuscitation of the 
Melvillian position, was a memorable landmark in th© 
history of Scotland, for those who left the EstabHshment 
built up a great and powerful Church, and those who re- 
mained in the Church of Scotland went courageously to 
work to repair the breaches, and long before the aboli- 
tion of lay patronage, in 1874, they had restored the 
Church to a vigour which was worthy of its best 
days. The two great Presbyterian Churches in Scot- 
land are no longer separated by fundamental differences 
of opinion and are, in one sense, more truly united 
than when they were two opposing parties in one 
Church. Unity of sentiment and feeling has in recent 
years produced a hopeful movement towards unity of 

The influence of the past history of Scotland is more 
readily traced in ecclesiastical questions than in political 
and social problems, the conditions of which afford 
smaller opportunity of appeal to history. A story of 
ecclesiastical life so varied and of ecclesiastical an- 
tagonism so bitter may, in spite of the honourable 
record of sufferings endured for conscience' sake by 
adherents of all parties, be but a damnosa hereditas in 



the discussion of the problems of to-day. Good and 
evil are mixed in the religious history of Scotland. 
How far it is possible to hold to the good without 
clinging to things less noble, remains the problem of 
the generations. 

OF ARCHERS. Pafire 305, 

Br. Spens, who was admitted in 1750 and died in 1815, was first Vice-President of the Council. 

Meproduced by permission from the portrait by Raeburn in the Archers' Hall, Edinburgh. 


Aberdeen, 86, 111, 141, 196, 202, 
206, 221. 222, 228, 231, 293, 294 

Aberdeen Assembly, 174 

Aberdeen, Earl of, 272 

Aberdeen, See of, 24, 163 

Aberdeen University, 129, 208 

Aberdeenshire Sheriff Court, Re- 
cords of, 243 

Abjuration Oath, 307 

Abolition of lay patronage, 311 

Act for Commission of Union, 287 

Act for securing Presbyterian Church 
Government, 290 

Act of Classes, 229, 235, 236 

Act of Pardon, 295 

Act of Security, 284, 286 

Act of Union, 292 

Adam, Dr., 304 

African Company, 282 

Agnes, Countess of March, 99 

Agricola, 2, 3 

Aikenhead, Thomas, 279 

Ailred, 19, 23, 28, 37 

Aird's Moss, 270 

Albany, First Duke of, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 122, 123 
Albany, Murdoch, Second Duke of, 

112, 113 
Alexander I., 19, 21, 22, 60 
Alexander II., 50, 52, 54, 55, 70 
Alexander III., 55, 56, 59, 61 
Alexander of the Isles, 113 
Alford, 223 
Alnwick, 117 
Alnwick Castle, 46 
Alyth, 237 
Ancrum Moor, 140 
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 9, 10, 17, 20 
Angus (Archibald Bell - the - Cat), 

Earl of, 123, 126 

! Angus, Earl of, 126, 133, 137 
Angus, Earl of Moray, 28 
Angus MacFergus, 7 
Angus Og, 90 
Annandale, 105 
Anne, Queen, 284, 293 
Antoninus Pius, 3 
Antrim, Marquis of, 219 
" Apologetic Declaration," 273 
Applecross, 279 
Ardoch, 3 

Argyll, Duke of, 294-296 

Argyll, Earl of (First Marquis), 221, 

229, 230, 235, 236, 251 
Argyll, Earl of, 241, 273, 274 
Arkinholm, 119 
Armada, 161 

Arran, Earls of, 134, 139, 147, 160, 

Articles, Lords of the, 114, 167, 181, 

193, 252, 257, 283 
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 


Athol, Earl of, 107, 115 
Auldearn, 223 
Ayala, Pedro de, 33 
Ayr, 282 
Aytoun, 126 

Badenoch, 220 

Baillie, Robert, 198, 199, 202, 203, 
204, 205, 206, 215, 217, 218, 219, 
223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 240, 
241, 242, 243, 246, 248, 250, 251, 

Baillie, General, 222-225 
Bailleul, 72 
Balliol, 98 

Balliol, Bernard de, 37 
Balliol, Edward, 97 




Baliiol, John, 70, 71 
Balmerino, Lord, 194 
Bane. Donald, 70 
Banff, 291 

Bannockburn, 92, 124 
Barbadoes, 283 
Barebone Parliament, 238 
Bass Rock, 274 
Baiige, Battle of, 109 
Beaton. Archbishop, 134 
Beaton, Cardinal. 136, 137, 139, 140, 

Beaufort, Joan, 112 
Bede, 3 

Berwick, 46, 72, 83, 86, 93, 98, 100, 

105, 109, 115, 206, 274 
Birgham, Treaty of, 68, 71 
Bishops' War, First, 206 
Bishops' War, Second, 209 
" Black Acts," 160, 162 
Black Death, 100 
Blair Athol, 220, 222 
Blenheim, 286 
Boece, Hector, 33, 111, 129 
Boniface VIII., 76 
Bothwell Bridge, 268 
Bothwell, Earl of, 151, 152 
Bower, Walter, 109, 111, 112 
Boyle, Roger, 241 
Braemar, 293 
Brechin, 293 
Brechin, See of, 24 
Bridge of Dee, Battle of, 207 
Brodie, Alexander, 242. 267 
Broghill, Lord, 241, 242 
Brown, Professor Hume, 189, 292 
Brown of Priesthill, John, 273 
Bruce, Edward, 87, 92 
Bruce, King Robert, 76, 77, 79, 83-96 
Bruce, Nigel, 83 

Bruce, Robert, 37, 56, 58, 71, 74, 

Brunanburh, 8 
Buchan, Countess of, 83 
Buchan, Earl of, 67,72, 82, 85 
Buchanan, George, 54, 159 
Buckingham, Duke of, 192 
Burgh, Hubert de, 52 
Burgh-on-Sands, 85 
Burghead, 31 

" Burned Candlemas," 100 
Burnet, Archbishop Alexander, 263- 

Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, 231, 254, 

256, 257, 261-269 
Burntisland, 294 
Bute, 289, 290, 303 
Byland, 93 

Caen, 46 

Caithness, 289, 290 
Caithness, See of, 24, 163 
Calderwood, 174, 176, 179, 180, 182 
Cambuskenneth, 74, 95 
Cameron, Richard, 270 
Cameronians, 270, 271, 275, 278 
Campbell of Glenlyon, 281 
Campbell, Sir Xigel, 85 
Campvere, 230 
Canons, Book of, 195 
Cantyre, 185 
Canute, 10 
Carberry Hill, 152 
Carbisdale, 230 
Cargill, Donald, 270 
Carham, 10, 12 
Carlisle, 36, 84, 294, 298 
Carlvle, Alexander, 297 
Carnwath, Lord, 294 
Caroline, Queen, 296, 305, 308 
Carrick, 84 

Carstares, William, 278, 291 

Casket Letters, 152 

Cassilis, Earl of, 252 

Catherine de Medici, 142, 146 

Catholic Emancipation, 306 

Chalmers, Thomas, 309 

Charles L, 188, 190, 193, 212, 227, 
229, 241, 243, 305 

Charles 11. . 230, 231, 235, 236, 244, 
245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 261 

Charles XIL, 295 

Charles Edward, Prince, 296-301 

Charter's Hall, 88 

Church Courts, 158 

Clackmannan, 289, 290 

Claim of Rights, 277 

Clan Gregor, 185 

Claverhouse, 267, 273, 277 

Clement III., 52 

Clitheroe, 37 
j Cochrane, 123 

Cockburn, Lord, 304, 305 
1 Colinton, 260 
I Columba, 6 
! Commonwealth, 238 



Comyn, Alexander, 67 
Comyu, Earl of Menteith, Walter, 58 
Comyn, John, 70, 72 
Confession of Faith, 144, 159, 226, 

Constantine III., 8 
Conventicles, Act against, 264 
Convention Parliament, 276 
Cope, Sir John, 296, 297 
Corfe Castle, 50 
Coucy, Marie de, 54 
Court of Session, 243, 292 
Coventry, Walter of, 62 
Craig, Sir Thomas, 34, 164 
Craigmillar, 123 
Crawar, Paul, 110 
Crichton, Sir William, 116 
Cromwell, 218, 219, 229, 230, 231, 

232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 240, 241, 

243, 255 
Culdees, 21, 24, 25 
Culloden, 301 
Cumberland, 43 
Cumberland, Duke of, 298, 301 
Cumbria, 9, 10 

Dalriada, 4, 6 
Dalriada, King of, 6 
Dalriada, Scots of, 6-7 
Dalziel, Sir Thomas, 260, 262, 273 
Darien, 289 

Darnley, Lord, 149-151 
David I., 23, 24, 28, 35, 39 
David II., 96-102 
David, Earl of Huntingdon, 70 
Defoe, Daniel, 286-288 
Derwentwater, Earl of, 294 
Directory for Public Worship, 218, 

Disruption, The, 311 
Donald, King, 17-18 
Doncaster, 36 
Douglas, Sir Archibald, 98 
Douglas, Catherine, 116 
Donglas, Earls of, 108, 116-121 
Douglas, Sir James of, 84-96 
Douglas, Robert, 236 
Doun Hill, 232 
Dumbarton Castle, 153, 205 
Dumfries, 80, 260, 282 
Dunbar, 72, 99, 150, 232, 234 
Dunbar, William, 129 
Dunblane, 193, 294 

Dunblane, See of, 24 
Duncan, 8, 10 
Dundalk, 92 
Duncan, King, 17 
Dundee, 228, 237, 277 
Dunfermline, 30, 97 
Dunkeld, 8, 24 
Dunnottar Castle, 274 
Dunse Law, 206 
Dupplin, 97 
Durward, Alan, 58 

Eadmer, 22 

Earldom of Northumberland, 40 

Ecgfrith of Northumbria, 7 

Edderton, 32 

Edgar Atheling, 12, 14, 18 

Edgar, King, 17, 19 

Edinburgh, 46, 155, 162, 198, 199, 

206, 228, 231, 232, 234, 236, 240, 

244, 250, 260, 269, 291, 305 
Edinburgh Castle, 123, 154, 155, 205, 

213, 277 
Edinburgh, Diocese of, 194 
Edmund, King, 18 
Edmund of England, 9 
Edward I., 60, 67-85 
Edward IL, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93 
Edward III., 98 
Edward IV., 120, 123 
Edward the Confessor, 11 
Elgin, 10, 107, 222, 291 
Elizabeth, Queen, 143,144, 146-153, 

159, 160-161, 164 
Elphinstone, Bishop, 129, 130 
English " Over-Lordship," The, 9 
English party in Scotland, Rise 

of, 57 

Episcopacy, 156, 173, 176, 253 
"Equivalent," 289 
Eric of Norway, 69, 70 
Evangelical party, 308 

Fairford, Archbishop of Glasgow, 

Falaise, 46 

Falaise, Treaty of, 47 
Falkirk, 32, 75 
Falkland, 137, 231 
Fast Castle, 109 
Fergus, 4 

Ferteth (of Strathearn), Earl, 42 
Firth of Forth, 293 



Fitzpatrick, Sir Roger, 81 

Five Articles of Perth, 180-182, 188 

Fletcher of Saltoun, 286 

Flodden, 130-133 

Forbes, Duncan, 296, 300 

Forbes, William, 194 

Fordun, John of, 23, 29, 49 

Forfar, 86 

Forster, 294 

Fort William, 281 

Forth, River, 88, 300 

Franchise Acts, 306 

Francis L, 137, 144 

Francis II., 142, 146, 148 

Franco-Scottish alliance, 71 

Free Church of Scotland, 311 

Freeman, Mr., 35, 94 

French Revolution, 304 

Fyvie Castle, 221 

Gaelic, 15, 25, 32, 34, 64, 65, 83, 

Galloway, 55, 63, 86 

Galloway, See of, 24 

Galwegians, 38, 39, 47 

Garry, Loch, 241 

General Act Rescissory, 253 

General Assembly, 145-146,157, 158, 
160, 162, 163, 167, 170-180, 203- 
217, 239-241, 278, 308-311 

General Election of 1708, 292 

George I., 284, 293 

George II., 295 

George III., 303 

George IV., 305, 307 

Glasgow, 24, 203, 268, 282, 291 

Glasgow, Archbishop of, 264 

Glasgow University, 129, 157 

Glencairn, Earl of, 241, 243, 249 

Glenesk, 65 

Glenshiel, 279, 295 

Gloucester, Earl of, 88 

Godolphin, 286, 288 

" Golden Acts " of 1592, 162, 278 

Govan, William, 251 

" Gowrie Conspiracy," 164 

Greenock, 295 

Gregory IX., 53 

Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh, 

Greyfriars' Churchyard, 269 
Guthred, 47 
Guthrie, James, 251 

Hackston of Bathillet, 270 

Haco of Norwav, 59 
I Hadrian IV., 41 
j Hadrian, Emperor, 2 

Hague, 230 

Halbert Bog, 8 

Halidon Hill, 98 

Hamilton, 235, 268 

Hamilton, Archbishop, 154 

Hamilton, Bishop of GaUoway, 

Hamilton, Fourth Duke of, 287 

Hamilton, Patrick, 136 

Hamilton, Third Marquis and First 

Duke of, 203, 204, 214, 215, 228, 

229, 231 
Harlaw, 111 

Harold, Earl of Caithness, 47 

Hastynges, John, 70 

Heads of Proposals, 227 

Hebrides, 19, 125 

Hemingburgh, Walter of, SO, 83 

Henderson, Alexander, 200, 204, 
209, 210, 212, 217, 225 

Henry L, 12, 18 
i Henrv II., 40, 43, 46, 142 
; Henry III., 53, 57, 58 
I Henry IV., 108, 118 
I Henry VII., 124 
j Henry Vni., 130, 134, 142 
i Henryson, Robert, 129 

Hereford, 223 

Hertford, Earl of (Protector Somer- 
set), 140-142 

Hexham, Richard of, 41 

High Commission Court, 175, 203 

High Court of Justiciary, 138 

Highland dress, 29, 301 

" Highland Host," 266 

Highlanders, 33, 38, 98, 130 

Holyrood, 30, 113, 128, 150, 179, 
180, 214, 275 

Holyrood, Chronicle of, 42 

Homildon HiU, 108, 112 

Humble Petition and Advice, 239 

Huntingdon, 35 

Huntingdon, Earldom of, 35, 43, 45, 

Huntly, Earls of, 126, 148, 154, 161, 

Huntly, Second Marquis of, 206, 

Hurry, General, 222 



Incident, The, 214 
Indulgence. Letters of, 263, 265, ^ 

Instrument of Government, 239 
Inverary, 222, 281 
Invergowrie, 21 
Inverness, 86 
Inverurie, 85, 221, 291 
lona, 8, 19, 185 
Ireland, 230 
Islay, Lord, 186, 296 
Isle of Man, 87 
Isle of Wight, 227 
Islesmen, 110, 125, 130 

James L, 108, 112-117, 129 
James IL. 116-120, 138 
James III., 120-125, 137, 304 
James IV., 124-132, 138 
James V., 134-139 
James VI.. 150, 152, 159-188, 193, 

195, 236, 243, 291 
James VIL, 269-277 
James VIII., 275, 293-294, 296 
Jedburgh, 46 

Joan, Queen of James I., 112, 115-116 

Joanna, Queen, 52, 54 

John of Fordun, 23, 29, 49 

John of Gaunt, 105 

Johnson, Dr., 302 

Johnston of Warriston, 251 

Keith, Marshal, 294 
Keith, Sir Robert, 90 
Keledei or Culdees, 7 
Kelso, 58 

Kenmure, Lord, 294 
Kennedy, Bishop, 117-121, 129 
Kenneth II. , 8, 10 
Kenneth MacAlpin, 8 
Kildrummie Castle, 83 
Killiecrankie, 278 
Kilsyth, 223 
Kinghorn, 61 

King's Covenant of 1581, 201 
King's Quair, 112 
Kinross, 289, 290 
Kirk of Field, 151 
Kirkaldy of Grange, 154-155 
Knox, John, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 
148, 156 

Knox's Book of Common Order, 
157, 177, 198, 280 

I La Rochelle, 192 
; Lairg, 279 
Lanark, 260 

Lanark, Earl of, 214, 227 

Lanercost, Chronicle of, 81 

Langside, 153 

Largs, Battle of, 59 

Laud, Archbishop, 192, 193, 195, 

196, 210 
Lauder, 123 

Lauderdale, Duke of, 227, 250, 251, 

253, 263, 264, 265, 268 
Lay patronage, 256, 278, 293 
Leighton, Archbishop, 262, 263, 264 
Leith, 144, 146 
Lennox, death of, 155 
Lennox, Dukes of, 159, 199 
Lennox, Earl of, 140, 149, 154-155 
Leslie, David, 209, 223, 224, 230, 232 
Lethington, Maitland of, 154, 155 n 
Leven, Earl of, 205, 217, 219, 223, 
i 237 

I Lichfield, 298 

i Linlithgow, 86, 151, 174, 200, 228. 
! 244 

Lion, William the, 45-52 

Lionel of England, Prince, 101 

Livingstone, Sir Alexander, 116 

Lochaber, 113 

Lochbroom, 279 

Lochcarron, 279 

Lochleven Castle, 152-153 

Loch Xess, 222 

Lochmaben Castle, 105 

Lollards, 135 

Lollius Urbicus, 3 

London, 237, 266 

Long Parliament, 209-238, 243-244 

Lords of the Congregation, 146 

Lorne, Lord, 241 

Lothians, The, 4, 18, 19 

Loudoun, 227 

Louis XI., 115 

Lucius III., 51 

Lulach, 11 

Lumphanan, 11 

Luss, 185 

Luther, 135 

Macbeth, 11 

Macdonald, Alexander, 219-222 
MacDonald of Glencoe, 281 
j MacHeth, Donald, 41, 42 



MacHeth, Malcolm, 28 
Mackenzie, Sir George, 250-252, 254, 

Mackintosh of Borlum, 293 
MacWilliam or Donald Bane, Don- 
ald, 47 

Madeleine, Queen of James V., 136 
Magus Moor, 267 
Mair, John (or Major), 33, 129 
Maitland of Lethington, 151 
Malcolm II., 8, 11, 13, 14 
Malcolm III., 12-17 
Malcolm IV., 41-44 
Malt Tax, 295 

Mar, Earls of, 122-123, 293-294 
Margaret, daughter of James I., 

Margaret, Queen of Malcolm Can- 

more, 12, 13, 15, 60, 67 
Margaret, Queen of James III., 122 
Margaret, Queen of James IV., 128, 

Marischal, Earl, 209 
Marlborough, 286 
Marston Moor, 217, 218 
Mary of Gueldres, Queen of James 

II., 121 

Mary of Guise, Queen of James V., 

Mary, Queen, 138-155, 161 
Mary Tudor, 142 
Masson, Professor, 189 
Matilda, wife of Henry I., 18, 35 
Matilda, Empress, 40 
Maud, wife of Stephen, 40 
Melrose, 30, 96 
Melrose, Chronicle of, 42, 50 
Melville, Andrew, 157, 162, 171-172, 


Melville, James, 171, 173, 310 
Melville, Lord, 303 
Methven, Henry Lord, 134 
Middleton, Thomas Lord, 241, 251- 

Milton Bog, 88 
Mitton-on-Swale, 93 
*' Moderate " party, 308-309 
Monck, General, 237, 239, 243, 244 
Mondynes, 18 

Monmouth, Duke of, 268-273 
IMonro, General, 209 
Mons Graupius, 2 
Montagu, Bishop, 171 

Montrose, First Marquis of, 206, 207» 
209, 213, 214, 215, 219, 222, 223, 
224, 230, 250, 294 

Moray, 24 

Moray, Earls of, 88-90, 97, 98 
Morton, Earl of, 151, 155, 156, 159, 

Morton, Execution of, 159 
Muir, Thomas, 304 
Murray, Lord George, 298 
Murray, Regent, 148-154 
Musselburgh, 97 

Nairn, 289, 290, 291 
Naseby, 218 

National Covenant, 143, 201, 208, 

Nectan, 6 
Nectansmere, 7 
Nesbit, 100, 108 
Neville's Cross, 100 
New Galloway, 291 
New England, 234 
New Model Army, 218 
New Park, 87 
New York, 283 
Newark, 225 

Newburgh, William of, 28, 43, 45, 48 
Newburn, 209 

Newcastle, 14, 36, 209, 225, 226 

Newstead, 3 
Ninian, 3 
Nithsdale, 294 
Nor ham, 69 
Norham Castle, 126 
Northampton, 46 
Northampton, Treaty of, 94, 97 
Northmen, 10 
Northumberland, 43, 209 
Northumbria, 4, 7, 48 
Norway, Eric of, 60 
Norway, Maid of, 69 
Nova Scotia, 187 

Ogilvie, John, 182 

" Old Mortality," 268 

Oman, Professor, 40 

Orange, Prince of, 230 

Orkney, Earl of, 186 

Orkneys and the Shetlands, 7, 122 

Oswy, King, 6 

Otterburn, Battle of, 106 

Otto IV., Emperor, 40 



Pacification of Berwick, 207 

Parliament of Great Britain, 239, 
292-293, 306 

Parliaments of Scotland, 95-96, 101, 
110, 113-114, 119, 128, 130, 135, 
138-140, 144-146, 151, 156-160, 
163-163, 166, 173-176, 181, 188- 
195, 207-208, 215, 228-237, 251- 
258, 264-266, 271-274, 276-278, 

Paterson, William, 282, 283 

Patronage Act, 308 

Paulinus, 6 

Pedro de Ayala, 126 

Penda of Mercia, 6 

Penrith, 298 

Perth, 86, 107, 143, 164, 180, 219, 

228 236 
Perth,' Articles of, 180, 181, 203 
Perth, Earl of, 272 
Peterhead, 294 
Pezron, M. Paul Yves, 2 
Philiphaugh, 224 
Pictland, 8 
Picts, 1, 8 

" Picts of Galloway," 4 
Pinkie, 142 
Pitscottie, 124 

Pluscarden, Book of, 42, 49, 111 
Pope John XXII., 92 
Post nati. The, 184 
Presbytery of Auchterarder, 309 
Presbytery of Edinburgh, 250, 252 
Presbytery of Strathbogie, 310 
Preston, 229, 298 
Prestonpans, 297 

Privy Council of Scotland, 27, 138, 
163, 165, 171, 174, 185-186, 189- 
190, 198-200, 208, 213, 249. 250, 
256, 258-264, 266, 274 

Protesters or Remonstrants, 235-247 

Queensferry, 61 

Raid of Ruthven, 160 
" Red Comyn," 77, 78 
Redistribution Act of 1868, 306 
Reform Act of 1832, 306 
Reformation, 143-146 
Remonstrants, 247, 248 
Renwick, James, 273 
Res by, James, 109 
" Resolutioners," 235, 247, 248 

Revocation, Act of, 188, 191 
Revolution Settlement, 284 
Richard I., 48 
Richard II., 106 
Richard III., 124 
Richelieu, 192 
Ripon, 209 

Rizzio, David, 149, 150 
Rob Roy, 295 
Robert I. See Bruce 
Robert 11. , 98-106 
Robert III., 106, 109 
Robert de Brus, 26 
Robertson, Principal, 303 
Romans, 2, 3 
Ross, See of, 24, 163 
Rosslyn, 77 

Rothes, Earl of, 249-263 
Rothesay, Duke of, 107-108 
Row, John, 193, 196 
Roxburgh, 46, 75, 83, 86, 105, 109, 
115, 119 

Royal Burghs, Convention of, 30, 

Rullion Green, 260 
Rutherford, Samuel, 197 
Ruthven, Master of, 164 

St. Andrews, 21, 22, 157.180, 228,267 
St. Andrews, Castle of, 142 
St. Giles's Cathedral, 194, 198, 

St. Mungo or St. Kentigern, 6 
St. Ninian, 4 
Salisbury, 68 

Sanquhar, Declaration of, 270 
Sauchieburn, 124 
Scandinavians, 8 
Scone, 56, 82, 97, 235 
Scots, 1, 4, 8 
Scots law, 289 

Scott, Sir Walter, 259, 304, 305 
Scougal, Bishop, 262 
Seaforth, Lord, 222 
Second Book of Discipline, 158 
Self-Denying Ordinance, 218 
Severus, 3 

Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, 

253, 254, 260, 267 
Slains, 85 

Society of the Friends of the People, 

Solemn League and Covenant, 211, 



215-240, 246-249, 268, 204-275, 

Solway Moss, 137 
Solway, The, 153 
Somerled, 42, 43 
Sophia, Electress, 187, 284 
Spain, 295 
Spaniards, 283 
" Spanish Blanks," 161 
Spey. 231 

Spottiswoode, Archbishop, 176-202 
Standard, Battle of the, 36, 39 
Stephen, 36 

Stirling, 46, 87, 92, 155, 201, 206, 

236, 237, 296 
Stirling Castle, 77, 237 
Stirling, Seal of the burgh of, 63 
Stracathro, 72 
Strafford, 210 
Strathbogie, 221 
Strathclyde, 6 
" Sudreys," 19 
Sweden, 295 
Sweetheart Abbey, 76 
Synod of Aberdeen, 253 
Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, 256 
Synod of Whitby, 6 

" Tables, The," 200, 205 
" Ten Years' Conflict," 309 
Theodosius, 3 
Thomson, Andrew, 309 
Threave, 119 
Toleration Act, 292 
Torwood, 270 
Torwood Forest, 87 
Towton, Battle of, 120 
Treaty of Edinburgh, 146 
Treaty of Uxbridge, 218 
" Tulchan Bishops," 156 
Turgot, 21 

Turnberry, 31, 67, 84 
Turner, Sir James, 259 
Turriff, 206 
Tweeddale, 86 

Ulster, 186 

Union under the Protectorate, 

Union with England, Proposals for 
a, 67-69, 139-140, 183-184, 239, 
264, 283-293 

" Veto Act," 309, 310 

Wade, General, 295, 298 
Wallace, 73-79 
Walpole, Sir Robert, 295 
Walter of Hemingburgh, 73 
Warbeck, Perkin, 126 
Wardlaw, Bishop, 110 
Wark worth, 117 

" Water-poet," John Taylor, the, 

Westminster, 217, 292 

Westminster, Assembly of Divines 
at, 215-219 

Westminster Directory, 218, 280 

Westminster Hall, 292 

Whithorn, 3, 42 

Wigtown, 273 

William and Mary, 276 

William II. and III., 154, 267, 278, 
281, 282, 284 

William II. of England, 14 

William the Conqueror, 12-17 

William the Lion, 41-52 

Wishart, George, 140 

Wishart, George, Bishop of Edin- 
burgh, 262 

Wood, Sir Andrew, 126 

Woodstock, 43 

Worcester, 237 

Worcester, Battle of, 237 

Wyntoun, 23 

Yolande of Dreux, 60 
York, 22, 41, 215 
York, Duke of, 271, 272 
York, Treaty of, 54 







Painted by Sutton Palmer. Described by A. R. Hope Moncrieff. 
Containing- 75 Full-page Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. Sutton 
Palmer's Drawings. Square demy 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 20s. net. 
Post free 20s. 6d. 

" The illustrations are a most attractive and valuable feature of the volume ; they abound 
in merit, and the reproduction has been in many cases remarkably successful. . . . The 
letterpress deserves praise more unqualified ... it is racy of the soil, and not merely 
entertaining, but edifying to the indweller as well as the visitor of ' Bonnie Scotland.' " — 


Painted by J. YouNQ Hunter. Described by Neil Munro. Containing 
60 Full-page Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. Neil Munro's 
Drawings. Square demy 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 20s. net. Post 
free 20s. 6d. 

" Only a Scotsman with a keen eye for the picturesque, and a pen which responded to 
its appeal, could have written a book like this, rich in sidelights on national life and character 
as well as responsive to the claims of scenery. The illustrations — there are nearly seventy 
of them, and all are in colour— are admirable in their artistic merit and in their fidelity to 
nature. " — Standards 


Painted by William Smith, Jun. Described by A. R. Hope Moncrieff. 
Containing 40 Full-page Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. Smith's 
Drawings. Square demy 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price lOs. net. Post free 
ICS. 6d. 

" It is amazingly cheap at ten shillings net, for it contains an album of coloured pictures, 
by the aid of which we can realize the grandest scenery of the outer isles. Mr. Smith has 
done his work admirablj', and has included the best-loved and loneliest places." — British 



Painted by John Fulleylove, R.I. Described by Rosaline Masson" 
Containing- 20 Full-pag-e Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. John 
Fulleylove's Drawing-s. Square demy 8vo., cloth, g-ilt top. Price 7s. 6d. 
net. Post free 7s. iid. 

' • The pictures are exceedinghy beautiful, Mr. Fulleylove's work being reproduced by the 
three-colour process in an exceedingly line way. The letterpress, written by the daught.:r 
of Dr. David Masson, provides full and interesting reading, in which everyone will delight."— 
Edinburgh Evening Nezvs. 


Painted by William Smith, Jan. Described by the Rev. W. S. 
Crockett. Containing- 20 FuU-pag-e Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of 
Mr. Smith's Drawing-s. Square demy 8vo., cloth, g-ilt top. Price 7s. 6d. 
net. Post free 7s. iid. 

"Mr. W. S. Crockett tells the story of Abbotsford exceedingly well in a series of very read- 
able chapters. . . . Mr. Smith's twenty clever water-colours not only give many aspects of 
Scott's home and its immediate surroundings, but include also some very charming pictures 
of Melrose Abbey and other famous spots in the district. Letterpress and illustrations 
together make an extremely pleasant book." — Literary World. 


Painted by H. J. DoBSON, R.S.W. Described by Wm. Sanderson. Con- 
taining 20 Full-page Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. Dobson's 
Drawings. Square demy 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 7s. 6d. net. Post free 
7s. iid. 

" Mr. Dobson is an artist of high repute ; his touch is sure, his colour-sense perfect, his 
grip of character unfailing, while it is sympathetic." — Daily Mail. 


By A. R. Hope Moncrieff. Containing 24 Full-page Illustrations in 
Colour by SuTTON Palmer, taken from " Bonnie Scotland," and a Sketch 
Map. Square demy 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 7s. 6d. net. Post free 
7s. II d. 

"Pen and pencil are happily combined to do justice to this fine theme. Mr. Palmer's 
pictures are well varied, and Mr. Moncrieff mingles the serious and gay with equal success. 
It was a happy thought to follow the two earlier v-olumes, ' Bonnie Scotland' and ' Highlands 
and Islands,' by a third, not inferior, to say the least, to its predecessors."— vS/^c^a/i^r. 


Painted by James Faed, Jun. Described by J. M. Sloan. Containing 24 
Full-page Facsimile Reproductions in Colour of Mr. Faed's Drawings. 
Large crown 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 6s. net. Post free 6s. 5d. 

" Mr. J. M. Sloan is well equipped for his duty of description. He has intimate know- 
ledge, the true touch of ardent sympathy with his subject, and a bright and pleasing facility 
in conveying to the reader his own thoughts and impressions. His story of Galloway past a:. d 
present is well written, and will undoubtedly be well read. Similarly adequate is the treat- 
ment given to this fine subject on the artistic side. Mr. James Faed, jun., has been well 
dowered for his work, much of which as here presented is a real delight. There are, indeed, 
many choice bits within these pages." — Glasgow News. 



By Elizabeth W. Grierson. Containing- 12 Full-pag-e Illustrations in 
Colour from Painting-s by Allan Stewart. Large square crown 8vo., 
cloth, gilt top. Price 6s. Post free Gs. 56.. 

" There have been many books written about Edinburgh, but none which attempts to 
point out its attractions or explain its historical associations in the way this one does for the 
benefit of young people. The author comes down to the level of little folks ; yet the style 
in which she writes will not repel older people. . . . The volume is one which is certain to 
prove popular with little folk." — Scotsjuati. 


By Sir Walter Scott. Containing- 50 Full-pag-e Illustrations, Eig-ht of 
them being- in Colour from Drawing's by Mr. SuTTON Palmer, and a Large 
Scale Map of the District. Large crown 8vo., cloth, gilt top. Price 5s. net. 
Post free 5s. 5d. 

"A very beautiful edition of Scott's ' Lady of the Lake.' The poem is finely printed on 
an ample page ; the fifty full-page illustrations — many of them in colour, delicately repro- 
duced-^are all that the most fastidious taste could demand. ... A more complete and 
satisfying edition of the work has never been published."— G/aj^tPW Herald. 

THE FIRTH OF CLYDE. By Mackenzie MacBride. 

THE TROSSACHS. By g. e. m.tton. 

Containing 12 Full-page Illustrations in Colour. Large square demy 8vo., 
boards, with picture cover. Price Is. 6d. net each. Post free is. lod. 

This is a new series of colour-books produced at a popular price, and they are the most 
inexpensive books of this character which have ever been produced. They therefore make 
a significant epoch in colour-printing, bringing for the first time a high-class colour-book 
■within the reach of all. The illustrations are by'well-known artists, and their work has been 
reproduced with the greatest accuracy, while the printing reaches an exceedingly high level. 
The authors have been selected with great care, and are well known for the charm of their 
style and the accuracy of their information. 


Large crown Svo., cloth. Price Is. 6d. net. Post free is. lod. 


By Elizabeth W. Grierson. With 12 Illustrations in Colour by William 
Smith, Jun., and others. 

This is one of a series of Little Travel Books for Little Readers, meant to give children a 
glimpse at the scenes and customs of their own and other lands. It is written in a simple and 
interesting style, and nowhere smacks of the geographical text-book, the aim being that the 
child shall gain this instruction through the sheer pleasure of reading. 




By Charles S. Dougall, M.A. One Volume. Large crown 8vo., cloth. 
Containing- 32 Full-page Illustrations. Price 3s. 6d. 

" ' The Burns Country' ranks as one of the best of a delightful series. . . . The book 
is a fascinating record of leisurely pilgrimages by stream and country lane, such as Burns 
himself loved to make, and its pages are instinct with the freshness of the country. The 
illustrations are of exceptional interest and merit " — .5"/. James s Gazette. 


By the Rev. W. S. Crockett. One Volume. Third Edition. Large crown 
8vo,, cloth. Containing 162 Illustrations from Photographs. Price 3s. 6d. 

"The aim of this attractive and finely illustrated book is to conjure up the wealth of 
literary association, as well as to describe the singular charm of the scenery of a region which 
the author of the Waverley Novels has for ever rendered classic. Few men are better 
versed than the parish minister of Tweedsmuir in all that relates to this cradle-land of 
Scottish romance." — Spectator. 


By W. M. Mackenzie, M.A. Small crown 8vo., cloth. Illustrated. Price 
2s. 6d. net. Post free 2s. lod. 

" This is a compact and very well arranged book, very readable both for the young pupil 
in a Scotch school and the older Southerner who desires to know what the past history of 
Scotland had been." — Guardian. 


Fully Illustrated with Maps, Plans, and Views. 

EDINBURGH AND ENVIRONS. Fcap. 8vo. Price 6d. net. Post 
free 8d. 

GLASGOW^ AND THE CLYDE. Fcap. 8vo. Price 6d. net. Post 
free 8d. 

SCOTLAND. Cheap Edition. Price is. net. Post free is. 3d. 

SCOTLAND. Fcap. 8vo. Price 7s, 6d. net. Post free, 7s. lod. 

EAST CENTRAL. Fcap. 8vo. Price 2S. 6d. net. Post free 2S. gd. 

NORTH. Fcap. 8vo. Price us. 6d. net. Post free 2s. gd. 

SOUTH-EAST. Fcap. 8vo., cloth. Price 2s. 6d. net. Post free 

2s. gd. 

WEST AND SOUTH-WEST. Fcap. 8vo., cloth. Price 2S. 6d. 

net. Post free, 2s. gd. 

TROSSACHS AND LOCH LOMOND. Fcap. 8vo. Price is. net. 
Post free is. 3d. 


Date Due 



A 1 IP 

r lQ7n 


OCT li 


^ 3 9031 01213498 

Boston College Library 

Chestnut Hill 67, Mass. 

Books may be kept for two weeks unless a 
shorter time is specified. 

Two cents a day is charged for each 2-week book 
kept overtime; 25 cents a day for each overnight 

If you cannot find what you want, inquire at the 
delivery desk for assistance. 

<^ 6-51 

4". -